NAND KISHORE Vs. ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAKASH Krishna, J. This is tenant's petition. It arises out of an application filed by the landlady respondents for release of the disputed shop which is situate in a room of house No. 127 Naya Meerapatti, Allahabad. The petitioner is carrying on the business of self dynamo and battery at monthly rent of Rs. 250/ -. Smt. Chandra Prabha Devi (since deceased), the landlady of the premises filed a release application of the shop for the bona fide need of her two unemployed sons Ashok Kumar and Manoj Kumar. The said shop is situate on main G. T. Road. It was stated in the release application that the landlady along with her family which consists of five married couples is residing in two rooms accommodation of the same building behind the disputed shop. She pleaded that she will get a shop of motor parts opened in the disputed shop so that her two sons Ashok Kumar and Manoj Kumar may earn their livelihood and settle in the life. A written statement by way of reply was filed by the petitioner denying the need of the landlady. Along with the written statement an affidavit of two paragraphs verifying the contents of the reply/written statement was also filed. The release application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority by the order dated 29th of July, 1998 on the finding that the needs of the landlady is bona fide and genuine and she would suffer greater hardship in case the release application is rejected. Against the said order rent control appeal No. 191 of 1998 was filed which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 17th of November, 2006 by the Court below.

(2.) SHRI G. S. Srivastava, the learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ petition submitted the following two points : (1) That no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner by the Prescribed Authority while deciding the release application as the release application was decided, according to him ex parte without hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. (2) The tenant petitioner had filed reply to the release application as also affidavit and therefore, the observation made in the judgment of the Prescribed Authority that no affidavit was filed by the petitioner is incorrect.

(3.) THE question, thus, falls for determination before this Court is whether the petitioner's Counsel was heard by the Prescribed Authority or not.