AMARJEET SINGH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the records. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:

(2.) Brief factual matrix of the case are that the petitioner is the tenant in the disputed premises since the year 1980, of which opposite party No. 3 is the landlord. The landlord moved application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of disputed premises on 26.08.2000, in which the petitioner filed written statement on 05.12.2003, which was prepared and verified on 10.10.2003 but filed later on so as to steal time to keep his premises occupying. Under Rule 15(3) of the Rules framed under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, such application deserves to be decided, as for as possible, within two months. But, the petitioner/tenant has got success in keeping the disposal of the case pending for the last twelve years. He is moving applications after applications with an intent to delay the proceedings and, thereby, he is creating obstacles at every stage of trial and virtually attempting to prevent the learned Prescribed Authority from proceeding with the case. This case is a typical example of how an ordinary case moves in our courts. Cantankerous and unscrupulous litigant on one ground or the other, do not permit the Court to proceed further in the matter, which is demolishing the credibility of the entire judiciary, which is at stake.

(3.) The petitioner has made his intention clear by the recital in the writ petition itself that he is in occupation of the disputed shop as lessee without any allotment order for more than twenty years and that the landlord do not intimate the vacancy to Rent Control and Eviction Officer. It does not lie in the mouth of the tenant to occupy the premises on lease and then raise eyebrows on the conduct of the landlord just to keep the occupation continuing.