(1.) PRESENT petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the orders dated 30th April, 2010 (Annexure I), 9th June, 2010 (Annexure II) and 11th June (Annexure III), 2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge/FTC-IV Dehradun in Rent Control Appeal No.165 of 2009 "Smt. Hanit Mangat and others Vs. Smt. Sant Kaur and others" and to allow the applications moved by the petitioners, Annexure no. XI, XIII & XV to the petition.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are, that the petition under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was moved by late Shri Lal Singh (the husband of the respondent no.1) which was registered as P.A. Case No.46 of 1981. The said petition was dismissed and the matter was finally concluded in Rent Control Appeal no.178 of 1982 decided on 24.02.1983. The respondent no.1 is bent upon to get the accommodation vacated on one pretext or the other and with the same aim a petition under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was again moved by the respondent no.1 against the petitioners, which was registered as P.A. Case no.37 of 2008 "Smt. Sant Kaur Vs. Smt. Surinder Kaur and others". Written statement was filed by opposite party nos.1 to 6. The learned Prescribed Authority allowed the release application vide order dated 26.11.2009. Against the order dated 26.11.2009, an appeal was filed by the petitioners and respondent no.5. Thereafter on 16.04.2010 an application for appointment of Commissioner under Section 34 of the Act read with Rule 22 was moved by the petitioners. The said application was rejected by the learned Appellate Authority vide order dated 30.04.2010. Since the application of the appellants/ petitioners for issue of Commission was rejected by the learned Appellate Authority, hence in order to prove their case, the appellants/ petitioners filed another application (paper no. 29c-2) praying therein to allow an Architect to measure the property of the first floor and to prepare a map thereof so that it can be brought before the Court how much accommodation is available with the landlady. The application(paper no.29c-2) was also rejected by the learned Appellate Authority vide order dated 9th June, 2010 Thereafter, another application (paper no. 41c) was moved by the appellants/petitioners for granting opportunity to the appellants/petitioners to lead their evidence, but the learned Appellate Authority while disposing of application (paper no.29c-2) vide order dated 9th June, 2010 has fixed the case directly for arguments rather than giving opportunity to file the evidence. The learned Addl. District Judge, FTC-IV, Dehradun has also rejected the said application vide order dated 11th June, 2010 on the ground that the order dated 30.04.2010 is being misread by the appellants/ petitioners as no opportunity was granted to the parties to file their evidence. Hence this petition.
(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that even after the order dated 30.04.2010, the petitioner had sufficient time for filing evidence which he did not do. If the accommodation occupied by the landlady is not disclosed in plaint, the landlady has to bother for the same as she is required to prove her need and hardship. In my view the orders passed by learned lower appellate Court does not suffer from any illegality.