TARACHAND KHANDELWAL Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a landlord. He filed an application under section 3 of Act III of 1947 for piaintiff filing a suit for ejectment of respondent No. 3. THE permission was granted. THE tenant filed a revision before the Commissioner which was rejected. THEreafter, he filed a revision under section 7-F of the old Act which was also rejected. A writ petition was filed in this court which was rejected. Special Appeal therefrom was also rejected. Act 13 of 1972 came thereafter. THE landlord then filed an application under section 21(1) of the Act, and prayed for eviction of the tenant. This application has been rejected on 18-3-1975 with respect to one out of the two shops which were claimed by the landlord. Hence this petition.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has placed reliance upon section 43(2) (rr) of Act 13 of 1972. This section runs as follows :-

(3.) IN the result, therefore, I allow this writ petition and quash the impugned order of the prescribed authority (A.D.M.) Agra dated 18-3-1975. The respondent No. 3 is allowed three months time to vacate the premises and to deliver possession of the same to the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 is directed by writ of mandamus to evict the opposite party No. 3 from both the shops in dispute, on the expiry of three months from today and to deliver possession thereof to the petitioner. Parties shall bear their own costs.