MAHENDRA PAL AGARWAL Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY GHAZIABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 14-1-1994 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition ).

(2.) I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P. K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 and 3. I am not inclined to interfere in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In this case the petitioners are landlord of the disputed premises. The tenant filed an application under Section 27 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition ). In this application it was alleged that the landlord had cut off the amenities of bathroom and toilet which were being used by the respondents employees including lady employees. The petitioners filed an objection to this application (Annexure 2 to the writ petition ). However, by the impugned order dated 14-1-1994 the tenant's application under Section 27 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was allowed Aggrieved the present petition has been filed in this Court. In the impugned order dated 14-1-1994 it has been held that the tenants have been using bathroom and toilet since 1978 until the landlord in 1989 prevented the employees of the respondents from using the bathroom and toilet. I have perused the impugned order and find no infirmity in the same.