MAHESH CHAND Vs. ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the tenant has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 22.2.2002 passed by respondent No. 1 (Prescribed Authority) (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) whereby the authority rejected the application of the tenant for recalling the witnesses who had filed their affidavits in support of the application of the landlord for release of the shop in question under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

(2.) In brief, the petitioner's allegations are that he is tenant of the shop in question and respondent No. 2 is landlord. The landlord moved an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act before the Prescribed Authority for release of the shop in dispute on the ground that he required the aforesaid shop to establish business of his sons Naveen Kumar and Ashok Kumar who wanted to start business of readymade garments. In P.A. Case No. 10 of 1987 Ram Kishore v. Mahesh Chand the tenant appeared and filed his objection against the release application. The landlord in support of his case filed affidavits of Ram Autar Kaushik, Sanjay Verma, Mobin Ansari and Mukesh Kumar. Subsequently, the petitioner came to know that the witnesses who had filed their affidavits on behalf of the landlord had not come to Bulandshahar and they did not make their signature/thumb impressions on the register maintained by the Oath Commissioner for the aforesaid purpose. He, therefore, moved an application on 15.5.2000 supported with his own affidavit for summoning the deponents for their cross-examination. He further prayed for summoning the relevant register of Oath Commissioner. The landlord filed his objection on 25.5.2000 alongwith his own affidavits. Ram Autar Kaushik, who had filed his affidavit on behalf of landlord also moved an application on 24.5.2000 that he did not file any affidavit in support of the landlord's application and the alleged affidavit was not signed by him. After having heard learned Counsel for the parties, learned Prescribed Authority rejected the application of the tenant on 22.2.2002.

(3.) Heard Sri Ratnesh Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.K. Pandey, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 and perused the record.