JYOTI SWARUP AGARWAL Vs. CIVIL JUDGE GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a tenant in a portion of a house and respondent no. 3 is also a tenant who is living in another portion of the house as tenant. THE landlord for the petitioner and the respondent no 3 are one and the same person. An application under section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act no. 13 of 1972, hereinafter referred to as THE Act', was filed by the landlord for the release of both the accommodations in question on the ground of bonafide and personal need.

(2.) IN the proceedings under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act, the petitioner- tenant by an application raised two grounds of objection, firstly that the suit filed by the landlord is abated for non-joinder of necessary parties. As such, it was bad in law. Secondly it was objected that one single suit was filed against the petitioner for the release under the Act, which was also illegal as mis-joinder of parties. The petitioner has erroneously used the word 'suit' in the present writ petition referring to case under section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. It would not be a suit but an application. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order (Annexure 4) passed by the Prescribed Authority is illegal, unwarranted liable to be quashed. It was also submitted that the learned Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge has committed a manifest error of law in dismissing the application of the petitioner without catting for a counter affidavit or objection from the landlord.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at length, I am of the view that the present writ petition is misconceived, appears to have been filed to delay the proceedings pending in the court below.