DALJEET SINGH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, JHANSI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. Sri S.C. Srivastava, learned Counsel, has appeared on behalf of the landlady respondent No. 2, Tejendra Kaur Fukela, the only contesting respondent. He has also filed counter -affidavit.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 filed released application under section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and eviction) Act, 1972 against tenant -petitioner in the form of P.A. Case No. 04 of 2006. Prescribed Authority/J.S.C.C., Jhansi allowed the release application on 9.5.2007. Against the said order petitioner has filed R.C. Appeal No. 24 of 2007 which is pending.

(3.) APPELLATE Court held that as similar application had been rejected by the prescribed authority on 29.3.2007, hence fresh application was not maintainable before the Appellate Court. I do not agree with this reasoning. Appellate Court was hearing the appeal against the judgment and order passed by the prescribed authority, hence fresh application was quite maintainable before the Appellate Court. Of course, before the prescribed authority itself, tenant could not file a fresh application after rejection of his previous application dated 29.3.2007. However, such an application could very well be filed before the Appellate Court.