LOKESHWAR PRASAD Vs. OM KUMARI SAXENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Manu Saxena, Advocate for respondent. It is contended that there was no compliance of proviso to section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") and-no notice was ever served upon petitioner, hence the entire proceedings as well as release application are illegal and liable to be set aside.

(2.) Sri Pankaj Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, drew my attention to notice dated 26.8.1988, photocopy whereof is on page 78 of paper book and photocopy of acknowledgement is on page 80 of the paper book, to show that there is no endorsement regarding refusal thereon and, therefore, finding recorded by Lower Appellate Court in respect to issue No. 1 in the impugned judgment dated 12.9.2013 with respect to service of notice dated 26.8.1988 is perverse since it was never refused by petitioner and the postal department did not return it with any endorsement of refusal.

(3.) Sri Manu Saxena, learned Counsel appearing for respondent, drew my attention to certified copy of notice dated 26.8.1988 and also the registered envelops photocopy containing endorsement of postal department of refusal dated 30.8.1988, stating that this document has been concealed by petitioner and he has filed only one side of photocopy of notice which was produced before Court below but the photocopy of envelop of registered notice bearing registry receipt No. 4472, dated 28.8.1988 wherein endorsement of refusal has been mentioned, has not been brought on record and this is nothing but a sheer concealment of material fact on the part of petitioner. It is contended by Sri Manu Saxena that petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and there is an evident attempt on his part to mislead this Court by showing pleadings in paras 20, 21, 22 and 24 of the writ petition contending that no notice was ever sought to be served upon petitioner which was refused and there was no evidence before Court below still it has recorded a finding which is perverse and based on no evidence, though as a matter of fact in respect to notice dated 26.8.1988, photocopy of envelop was already there which contains endorsement of "refusal" and return. The aforesaid certified copy of notice and envelop, produced before this Court, is taken on record.