DURGA BHAGWATI INDUSTRIES HATHRAS Vs. OM PRAKASH LOHIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KRISHNA Murari, J. Challenge in this writ petition has been made to two orders of the appellate Court dated 4-4-2006 and 5-4- 2006. By order dated 4-4-2006, the appellate Court refused to extend the stay of the order of the Prescribed Authority and by order dated 5-4-2006, the application of tenants-petitioners to file certain additional evidence has been rejected.

(2.) THE undisputed facts are that respondents-landlords filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (for short the Act) for release of the accommodation in dispute. THE Prescribed Authority vide order dated 23-1-2006 allowed the said application. Feeling aggrieved, tenants- petitioners filed an appeal. On 21-2-2006 when the appeal came up for hearing the Counsel appearing for landlords-respondents gave an undertaking before the Appellate Court that if some early date for disposal of appeal is fixed they will not put the order of the Prescribed Authority in execution. THE Appellate Court fixed 1-4-2006 for final hearing. On 1-4-2006 the case was adjourned to 4-4-2006 and the undertaking given by the respondents-landlords was extended. On 4-4-2006, the Appellate Court directed the record of the trial Court to be summoned and fixed 5-4-2006. THE application for extension of stay moved by the tenants-petitioners was objected by the respondents-landlords on the ground that undertaking was given on the condition that the appeal may be heard on 1-4-2006. Now since tenants- petitioners have moved an application for taking additional evidence on record, which will delay the disposal of the appeal as such, the stay should not be extended. THE appellate Court rejected the application for extension of stay and fixed 5-4-2006. On 5-4-2006 the application filed by the tenants- petitioners for taking additional evidence was rejected.

(3.) IT has been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the application filed by the petitioners for taking additional evidence has been rejected solely on the ground that the said documents relate to the period prior to the decision of the trial Court and the application has been filed with a view to delay the proceedings without even considering the reason mentioned in the application for not filing the documents at the stage of trial.