ROSHAN LAL Vs. XITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of the Additional District Judge, Meerut dated 7.2.1991. In this case the respondents have been served personally and an affidavit of service has been filed. They have also been served by registered post, but no counter- affidavit has been filed. In the circumstances I am holding the service to be sufficient and I am proceeding to dispose of this petition finally.

(2.) THE petitioner is landlord of House No. 810, Sotiganj, Meerut City who filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. 'Act No. 13 of 1972 against the tenant which was allowed by the Prescribed Authority by order dated 25.8.1990, a true copy of which is Annexure 7 to the writ petition. Against this order respondent No. 2 filed an appeal which was allowed by the impugned order dated 7.2.1991, a true copy of which is Annexure 8 to the writ petition. Aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed in this Court.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the decision of Supreme Court in H.C. Pandey v. G.C. Paul, 1989(2) ARC 26, in which the Supreme Court has observed as follows :-