JINENDRA KUMAR JAIN Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is landlord's writ petition arising out of eviction/ release proceedings initiated by him on the ground of bonafide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Some of the contesting respondents were tenants opposite parties before the trial court and rest were substituted before the courts below after the death of their predecessor tenants opposite parties. Release application was registered as P.A. Case No. 49 of 1992 on the file of prescribed authority /I Additional Civil Judge, Muzaffar Nagar. In the release application, respondents 6 and 7 Mitra Sen and Desh Raj were impleaded as alleged sub-tenants. Sri Mitra Sen died and was substituted by his legal representatives. Release application was allowed on 11.11.1994.

(2.) Accommodation in dispute is commercial in nature rent of which is quite nominal, virtually negligible.

(3.) Against judgment and order dated 11.11.1994 two appeals were filed one by Dr. Ved Bhushan and others being R.C. Appeal No. 60 of 1994 and the other by Mitrasen being R.C. Appeal No. 62 of 1994. In the appeals on 18.9.1995, which was a date fixed in the appeals one advocate Sri Man Mohan Mittal filed a compromise along with an application stating therein that the parties in appeal had entered into compromise, which was being filed by him (Sri Man Mohan Mittal, Advocate). Sri M.M. Mittal was not the counsel of any of the parties. Copy of the said compromise is annexure 5 to the writ petition. The landlord objected that no such compromise had been entered into. Sri Mittal also stated that under compromise tenant had given Rs. 50000/to him for payment to landlord. On 25.9.1995, landlord filed objections along with affidavit. Counter affidavit to that was also filed. Sri Mittal was directed to give his oral evidence. His evidence was recorded on 13.10.1998, copy of which is annexure 8 to the writ petition. The appellate court held that compromise had in fact taken place hence appeals were decided in terms of the compromise through judgment and order dated 30.3.1999. Landlord has challenged the said order through this writ petition.