HAJI ABDUL SAMAD Vs. JALALUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) QUARTER No. 49 of House No. 101/288 Colonel Ganj, Kanpur was previously ni the tenancy of one Mohd. Yakub. According to the allegation set out in the writ petition the petitioner was living with Yaqub in the said house. An application was filed by Jalal Uddin respondent no. 1 for its allotment sometime in 1971 on the ground that Yaqub had left the premises and as there was a vacancy in respect of the aforesaid quarter, the same may be allotted to him. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer allotted the premises to Jalal Uddin, respondent no. 1 on 22-2-1972.

(2.) HAJI Abdul Samad, petitioner, thereafter filed an objection for the cancellation of the allotment order on the ground that there was no vacancy as he was living in the premises along with Yaqub. He asserted in the said objection that he had been paying rent to the landlord in his own right, therefore, the allotment order made in favour of Jalal Uddin on 22-2-1972, on the ground that there was a vacancy, was invalid. It, however, appears that in pursuance of the allotment order Jalal Uddin, respondent no. 1, also filed an application under Section 7-A of the Old Act for getting the possession against the petitioner. These two matters were heard by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and were decided by means of a common judgment. By the said order the Rent Control and Eviction Officer found that the allegation of HAJI Abdul Samad that there was no vacancy in the premises was incorrect and that the allotment order had been lawfully passed in favour of respondent no. 1, so he was entitled to get the possession. Aggrieved the petitioner went in appeal before the District Judge, Kanpur under Section 18 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The appeal has been dismissed. Against the dismissal of the appeal the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) HENCE the High Court will not be justified in interfering with the refusal to admit additional evidence. On being asked the learned counsel could only point out that those letters which were filed in appeal could not be collected by the petitioner for being made available at the initial stage of the case. This to my mind is hardly a circumstance which could justify the exercise of jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner in appeal. I am, therefore, unable to find that the learned District Judge, Kanpur committed an error of jurisdiction or committed any mistake apparent on the face of the record.