RAJ SACHDEVA Vs. MAHENDRA PRATAP SAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LANDLORD /respondents, herein, preferred an application under Section 21 (1) (a) and (b) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (for short the Act) seeking release of accommodation with a request to evict the tenant from tenanted property and to hand over the peaceful vacant possession to the landlord/respondents, herein.

(2.) IN a proceeding arising out of Section 21 of the Act, parties lead their respective evidence by way of affidavits. Undisputedly, as per Rule 34 (6) of the Act affidavit shall be filed in the proceeding under this Act as per requirement, as provided under the CPC. Landlord/respondents filed an affidavit in support of release application, thereafter, tenant petitioner also filed his evidence in the shape of counter affidavit. Subsequently, landlord/respondents filed a rejoinder affidavit annexing therewith 20 documents. Rejoinder affidavit along with 20 documents was filed on 24.11.2011. Tenant/petitioner thereafter, moved an application (paper no. 66C) stating therein that landlord/respondents filed additional evidence along with rejoinder without seeking permission/leave of the court, therefore, rejoinder affidavit along with 20 documentary evidence should be returned to the landlord/respondents. However, application, so filed, by the tenant/petitioner was rejected vide order dated 08.12.2011 and thereafter, release application, moved by the landlord/respondents, was allowed vide impugned judgment dated 29.02.2012. Feeling aggrieved, tenant/petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the District Judge, Nainital, which was registered as Rent Control Appeal No. 20 of 2012. However, appeal was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 07.09.2012.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved, tenant/petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.