AYAL DAS Vs. ANOOP KISHORE AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Atul Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Atul Sharma, appearing on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the present petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

(2.) This is a writ petition filed by the tenant. It appears that the landlord filed a release application under Sec. 21(1)(a) for release of the building, which is in the nature of a shop on the ground of bonafide need.

(3.) The petitioner contended that the landlord has 6-8 vacant shops in his possession and there is no bonafide need while the landlord took a stand that such shops have been converted into the residential accommodation. The petitioner moved an application before the Prescribed authority for appointment of the commission to verify the fact that whether the shops have been converted into the residential accommodation or not, but the Prescribed authority has rejected the said application by the order dated 14th May, 2010 and allowed the release application of the landlord directing the petitioner to vacate the premises in dispute within two months. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a Rent Control Appeal No. 107 of 2010 alongwith the stay application. The Appellate court has passed an interim order in favour of the petitioner. During the pendency of the said appeal, the petitioner moved an Application under Rule 27 for appointment of an Advocate Commission to verify whether six shops are still in existence or they have been converted into residential accommodation. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 23rd May, 2013.