ANAND MOHAN Vs. SRI BHAGWAN VERMA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 22.4.2000 whereby amendment application filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 22.7.2000 whereby the application to serve interrogatories upon the respondents, was dismissed by the Court below.

(2.) IT appears that the contesting respondent filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972) for short the Act. The application was objected to and opposed by the petitioner who happened to be the tenant in building in question, contending that the need of the landlord was neither genuine nor bona fide and that there was no question of hardship to him in case the application was rejected. Parties thereafter produced evidence in support of their case. Before the Prescribed Authority an application was filed by the petitioner for permission to serve interrogatories upon the respondent No. 1 which was rejected by the order dated 12.11.1998. The said order has become final. The Prescribed Authority, on the basis of evidence produced by the parties, proceeded to decide the case and ultimately allowed the application by its judgment and order dated 24.12.1998. Challenging the validity of the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Pending disposal of the appeal, the petitioner firstly, filed an application to amend the written statement. This application was opposed by the respondent No. 1. After hearing the parties, the said application was dismissed by the order dated 24.4.2000. Thereafter, another application was filed by the petitioner for permission to serve interrogatories upon the respondent. This application was also objected to and opposed by the respondent No. 1 contending that the petitioner has filed the application with a view to delay the disposal of the appeal and that it was not a bona fide application. The Appellate Authority after hearing the parties dismissed the said application by the impugned order dated 22.7.2000. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.