SAUD ALI KHAN Vs. MANORANJAN AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) The Prescribed Authority has further held that the application of the petitioner is not justified in the facts and circumstances of this case and that it appears that the petitioner is adopting delaying tactics to delay the hearing of the case which is listed for his evidence. The Court below has also noted that instead of giving evidence he has moved an application for spot inspection of the property in dispute. Therefore, his intention does not appear to be proper.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed an application under section 21(1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, which was registered as P.A. Case No. 38 of 2009, before the Prescribed Authority, Gorakhpur for a direction to the petitioner tenant to vacate the shop in question occupied by him on the basis of comparative hardship of both the parties. The application appears to have been filed by the respondent on the ground that he is running the marriage hall in the name and style of Swayambar Guest House and is facing a lot of difficulty in arrangement of his business, hence he requires more accommodation for the purpose of kitchen under the tenancy of the petitioner.