TRILOK CHAND JAIN Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE SAHARANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against orders passed by the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 rejecting an application of the Petitioner for the release of a shop, of which the Respondent No. 3 was admittedly the tenant, under Section 16 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

(2.) These are the relevant facts:

(3.) Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the finding of the Rent Control & Eviction Officer that the shop in dispute had not fallen vacant was unsustainable in law. It was urged that the Rent Control & Eviction Officer committed a patent illegality in taking the view that it was the Joint Hindu Family of which Respondent No. 3 claimed to be the karta which was the tenant of the accommodation in dispute, inasmuch as, the Respondent No. 3 himself had in some correspondence asserted, that he was the sole tenant. Counsel also urged that the assessment orders were wrongly not summoned, by the Sales Tax Authorities as they were not confidential documents. The Rent Control & Eviction Officer committed an illegality in not insisting on the production of the same.