VISHNU PRAKASH PANDEY Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY/CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION), MOHANIALGANJ, LUCKNOW AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice on behalf of opposite party No. 1 has been accepted by learned Chief Standing Counsel. Notice to opposite party No. 2 is dispensed with.

(2.) With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of finally at the admission stage.

(3.) It has been stated in the writ petition that the petitioner has purchased a house, bearing House No. C-135, Sector-H, Aliganj Housing Scheme, Lucknow from Swaraj Prakash Tewari through a registered sale deed. Prior to the purchase of the said house by the petitioner, it was in occupation of opposite party No. 2 as a tenant. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred an application under Sec. 21 (1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, for release of the premises in dispute on the ground of his bona fide need. It has further been stated that the application so made by the petitioner was registered on 29.3.2004 and the notices were ordered to be issued to the opposite party No. 2 fixing 20.4.2004 for filing a written statement. Thereafter, the opposite party No. 2 has taken several adjournments for filing written statement and after one year filed the same and now taking adjournments for filing evidence and opposite party No. I is not deciding the application made by the petitioner. Being aggrieved thereof the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition.