SURESH CHANDRA Vs. DINESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment and orders dated 17.9.2010 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 1, Muzaffarnagar in P.A. Case No. 24 of 2002: Dinesh Kumar and Anr. v. Suresh Chand and Ors., appended as Annexure-1 to this writ petition.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-landlord filed release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act before the Prescribed Authority, Muzaffarnagar on the ground that the shop is required to set up the sons of applicant no. 2 i.e. Amit Goyal and Sumit Goyal as they are interested in running their Computer Education Centre. The petitioner contested the case by filing written statement denying the genuine need set up by respondent-landlord in view of the fact that according to the business proposed to be done by the sons they are highly qualified and also in view of the fact that they are not residing at Muzaffarnagar for the last several years. Subsequently, respondent-landlord filed amendment application for adding paragraphs 4A, 5A, 10A, 10B and 10C which was allowed by the Prescribed Authority. On refusal by the respondent-landlord to furnish the documents demanded by the petitioner, the petitioners filed an application under Order 11 C.P.C. Objection to the said application was filed by the respondent-landlord on the ground that 2 interrogatories cannot be asked. Thereafter, respondentlandlord filed another amendment application (paper no. 102-C) stating therein that as his two sons namely Amit Goyal and Ankit have now been shifted in Ghaziabad, he himself wanted to start business in the shop in question along with Sumit Goyal. The petitioners again filed objection to the amendment application (paper no. 102-C) stating therein that the same is not maintainable as the application moved by the petitioners for interrogatories have not been decided for the last several months and the same should be disposed of first. After adducing the evidence by the parties, the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 17.9.2010 allowed the amendment application.