HARI OM GUPTA Vs. IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER the notice has been held to be sufficient, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is finally disposed of, since it is fairly old petition of the year 1984.

(2.) THIS writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed by the landlord against the order of the appellate authority, passed under Section 22 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, whereby the appellate authority has reversed the findings and conclusion arrived at by the prescribed authority on an application filed by the petitioner, landlord under Section 21 (1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner Sri S.D. Singh has argued that if the reply of the contention to the paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 of the application filed by petitioner before the prescribed authority is considered, then it would be apparent that the prescribed authority has not committed any error as found by the appellate authority.