ZILA PANCHAYAT BULANDSHAHR Vs. IVTH ADJ BULANDSHAHR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Respondent No. 2 - Rajendra Singh Solanki is occupant of a residential house in the Dak Bungalow campus belonging to the Petitioner and claims to be its tenant. According to the Petitioner the house in dispute is meant for the residence of its Additional Mukhya Adhikari. Total area of the house in dispute which is 1080 sq. meter. The further case of the Petitioner is that in the year 1989 Respondent No. 2 with the connivance of then President of the Petitioner Zila Panchyat, previously Zila Parishad broke open the lock of the said premises and forcibly occupied the same and that Respondent No. 2 has also been Member of Legislative Assembly (M.L.A.) and wielded ample political influence.

(2.) Ultimately, Petitioner filed application for eviction of Respondent No. 2 from the premises in dispute under Section 4 and 7 of U.P. Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act 1972 before Prescribed authority/City Magistrate, Bulandshahar and also claimed damages of Rs. 3,000/-per month. Respondent No. 2 filed reply stating therein that he was tenant at the rate of Rs. 350/-per month. The case was registered as case No. 1 of 1996. Prescribed authority decided the case in favour of the Petitioner and against Respondent No. 2 through order dated 27.6.1997, copy of which is Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Against the order passed by the Prescribed authority Respondent No. 2 filed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 68 of 1997.IVth Additional District Judge, Bulandshahar allowed the appeal through judgment and order dated 30.10.1998, set aside the order of the Prescribed authority dated 27.6.1997 and the matter was remanded to the Prescribed authority to decide as to whether Respondent No. 2 was valid tenant or unauthorised occupant of the house in dispute with effect from 23.9.1989. The said order of the appellate court has been challenged through this writ petition.

(3.) During pendency of appeal Respondent No. 2 filed some documents as additional evidence. The application to adduce the said documents as additional evidence was allowed by the appellate court. The Respondent No. 2 also filed a letter before the lower appellate court which was allegedly sent by Upper Mukhya Adhikari of the Petitioner to Respondent No. 2 dated 21.9.1993 mentioning therein that the order regarding agreement dated 23.12.1989 was not available.