ROHTASH KUMAR Vs. D D A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) arned counsel appearing for Respondents 1 and 2 submits that no counter affidavit would be necessary and that she would argue on the basis of the documents filed by the petitioner and the original record which she has brought to Court. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties the matter was taken up for final hearing.

(2.) In this petition the petitioner, inter alia, has prayed for the quashing and setting aside of the order of the learned Additional Judge. Delhi delivered on 7.12.2002 in an appeal No. EPA/350/2000 preferred by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act").

(3.) The premises in question is House No. 42, Arakpur, Bagh Mochi, Delhi. It is the petitioner's case that the ancestors of the petitioner and Respondent No. 3 (who happens to be the petitioner's brother) were in possession and ownership of the property since 1938-39. The petitioner contends that they were in possession on account of some lease. I need not enter into this controversy in this petition.