JAI PRAKASH Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The tenant petitioner has challenged the validity and correctness of the order dated 4.5.2011 appended as Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition whereby his application Paper No. 57 for directing the respondent to produce the will of her father-in-law. has been rejected on the ground that P.A. case No. 11 of 2010, Urmila Devi v. Jai Prakash, is to be decided on basis of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; that the petitioner acknowledges the respondent as landlord, hence he cannot resile from his stand by disputing that date of execution of the will is not disclosed by the landlady. The order dated 4.5.2011 reads thus:

(2.) The order dated 18.5.2011 appended as annexure No. 10 to the writ petition is also assailed by which another application Paper No. 59 filed by him for summoning the landlady to reply certain queries of the tenant petitioner in the aforesaid case, has been rejected by the Prescribed Authority. The order dated 18.5.2011 is as under:

(3.) The facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 - the landlady filed an application under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction), Act 1972 for release of the shop under tenancy of the petitioner which was registered as P.A. case No. 11 of 2010. The tenant petitioner is contesting the aforesaid case and has filed his written statement. In her replication, the landlady stated that the property in dispute was received by her through will executed by her father-in-law.