LAXMI MOHAN AGARWAL Vs. PRAKASH NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) Release application was filed by the landlord-respondent and his brother under Section 21(1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for establishing computer and printing press business in the two door shop under the tenancy of the petitioners. The release application was contested by the tenants by filing objections. The Prescribed Authority/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah allowed the release application of the landlord respondent vide order dated 30.10.2006 with a direction to the tenants to handover the vacant possession of the disputed shop to the landlord within a period of two months from the date of the order. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.10.2008, the tenants preferred P.A. Appeal No. 5 of 2006, Laxmi Mohan Agarwal and others v. Prakash Narain under Section 22 of the Act before the District Judge, Etawah. The appeal was admitted and was transferred by order dated 22.11.2006 to the Court of Additional District Judge, Etawah with a direction that the stay application will be considered on the next date. The interim order was granted by the appellate Court in favour of the petitioner on 15.4.2008 staying the execution proceedings.

(3.) It appears that an application has been moved by the tenants before the appellate authority as paper no. 42-C for amending the grounds of appeal for the reason that new and subsequent developments have come into existence during the pendency of the appeal as a commercial establishment just adjacent to the shop in dispute having approximately 4 times of the area of the shop in dispute which was previously under the tenancy of Bank of Baroda has come in possession of the landlord respondent. Another application paper no. 49-C was moved by the tenants for appointment of Advocate Commissioner before the appellate authority for inspection of the aforesaid premises vacated by Bank of Baroda. These two applications paper nos. 42-C and 49-C were considered by the appellate authority on 21.5.2009 and rejected on the ground that parties were not present to press the applications. On coming to know about the order dated 21.5.2009 the petitioners tenants moved an application paper no.56-C with an affidavit paper no.57-C for recall of the order dated 21.5.2009, which was also rejected vide order dated 30.7.2009 on the ground that there is no justification and ground under the law to recall the order dated 21.5.2009 fixing 11.8.2009 as the next date of hearing..