SOHAN SINGH Vs. MAIKU LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition Sohan Singh, who was the tenant of shop in premises No. 19 Johnstonganj, Allahabad has challenged the orders of the Prescribed Authority dated July 19, 1973 and April 17, 1974. By these orders the Prescribed Authority reject ed the applications made by Sohan Singh for permission to serve interrogatories on respondent No. 1 for discovery of certain facts.

(2.) THE facts are these: Premises No. 19 Johnstonganj, Allahabad belongs to Maiku Lal, respondent No. 1. It was allotted to the petitioner in 1948 under U.P-Act No. III of 1947. The petitioner is carrying on the business of Chemist and Druggist in the said premises since 1948. On coming into force of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the -new Act), the respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 21 of the said Act against the petitioner for his eviction from the shop. Respondent No. 1 alleged that he had to support a big family and as the earnings made from the small shop run by him on the foot path, and the staircase was not sufficient for the livelihood of his family members hence he was intending to open a new shop in the premises in the tenancy of the petitioner. The application was resisted by the petitioner. He denied that the shop was needed by respondent No. 1 for his personal use alleging that the application was filed by respon dent No. 1 on frivolous, fabricated, manufactured and mala fide alle gations.

(3.) THE Prescribed Authority rejected the application on July 19, 1973 holding that Section 34(1) (d) of the new Act gave power to the court to take steps as provided in the Code of Civil Procedure requir ing the discovery and production of documents and that it did not con fer any power on a party to serve interrogatories of certain facts. The petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge against the afore said order of the Prescribed Authority. The learned II Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal on December 22, 1973. He, how ever, made certain observations in the judgment to the effect that the word 'discovery' used in Section 34(1) (d) did not necessarily mean discovery of documents alone, but it included discovery by interroga tories as well. Emboldened by the aforesaid observation of the learned District Judge, the petitioner filed another application for leave to serve interrogatories on respondent No. 1. This application was also rejected by the Prescribed Authority on April 17, 1974. Ag grieved by the aforesaid two orders of the Prescribed Authority, the petitioner has come to this Court.