PREETAM SINGH BIHNOI Vs. VIMAL KUMAR MAHARSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.1.2010 passed by Prescribed Authority, Bijnor in P.A. Case No. 4 of 2006, appended as Annexure-10 to the writ petition, and order dated 22.1.2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Bijnor in Rent Control Appeal No. 3 of 2010, appended as Annexure-16 to the writ petition by which the release application filed by the respondent under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 has been allowed by the Prescribed Authority and the said appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

(2.) The facts are that the respondent-landlord (s) filed an application under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as Act No. 13 of 1972) in the Court of Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bijnor with the averments that the respondent is owner of the premises in question situate in Mohalla Ganga Nagar, Civil Lines, District Bijnor; that the said house as well as house situate towards southern of said house have been purchased by him and his brothers from one Anand Kumar Gupta by way of registered sale-deed dated 19.5.2003; that notice was given by the respondent-landlord on 30.8.2005 through his Counsel to the petitioner who claims to be tenant in a house in dispute. This notice was to the effect that accommodation in the house in dispute purchased by the respondent and his brother has been partitioned amongst them by which, portion in question under the tenancy of the petitioner has come in the share of the respondent Vimal Kumar Maharshi, as such rent may be paid to him.

(3.) The petitioner contested the release application by filing his written statement denying the allegation made therein except that he was tenant in a portion of the house in question. An objection was also taken by him to the effect that the release application filed by the landlord was misconceived and not maintainable as it has been filed by concealing -material facts. Reply to the objection in the written statement was also filed by the respondent-landlord.