ASHOK SHARMA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment dated 20.11.2002 (Annexure -7) passed by respondent no.2 and dated 10.12.2003 (Annexure -8) passed by respondent no.1.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition are, that initially Sri Haridutt Harbola and his daughter in law Smt. Devi Dutt Harbola filed application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 seeking eviction of the petitioner/tenant from the shop in question on the ground that the shop in question is bonafidely required to establish Ramesh Chand Harbola S/o Haridutt Harbola into furniture business. The release application was contested by the petitioner/tenant by filing written statement/objection. Thereafter both the parties led documentary evidence by way of affidavits along with annexures in support of their respective contentions. The learned Prescribed Authority after having heard both the parties and after going through the evidence led by them, vide judgment and order dated 8.4.1999, rejected the release application. Being aggrieved, the respondents/landlords filed appeal before District Judge. Learned District Judge, vide his judgment and order dated 10.5.2000, allowed the appeal, and remanded the case to the trial court to decide the same afresh in view of observations made in the judgment. After remand, the case was again heard and decided by the learned Prescribed Authority, who vide judgment and order dated 17.11.2000, allowed the release application of the landlords. Being aggrieved, the petitioner/tenant filed appeal before the District Judge. Vide judgment and order dated 21.8.2000, the appeal was allowed and the case was again remanded to the trial court in view of the subsequent fact of death of applicant Haridutt Harbola and in view of the fact that Jatin Harbola has become the landlord on the basis of Will executed in his favour by his grandfather Haridutt Harbola. After the second remand, learned Prescribed Authority again heard the matter and ultimately vide his judgment and order dated 20.11.2002, allowed the release application. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Prescribed Authority, the petitioner/tenant filed appeal, which also stood dismissed vide judgment and order dated 10.12.2003 passed by learned District Judge. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner/tenant before this Court.

(3.) THE writ petition has been filed by the petitioner/tenant on the following grounds: -