MOHD YUSUF Vs. ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE ETAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) THIS petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the judgments and orders dated 18-9-2002 and 29-9- 1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, District Etah and the Prescribed Authority/civil Judge (Junior Division), Etah, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

(3.) IT is urged that the sons of respondent No. 3 are doing their respective businesses of Kapda, Press and Kolhu as described in the written statement and they can enlarge their business as they have sufficient space there. IT was lastly submitted that respondent No. 3 did not accept rent from them, which is deposited under Section 30 of the Act in Misc. Case No. 123 of 1986 and Misc. Case No. 124 of 1986 respectively, hence no rent is due and they are entitled to benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act.