YUPENDRAKALARA Vs. PRADEEP SAIGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Namman Raj Vanshi, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner and Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent.

(2.) This petition under Article 227 of the Contitution of India has been filed praying to set aside the order dated 12.07.2017 in P.A. Case No. 48 of 2011 (Shri Pradeep Saigal v. Shri Yupender Kalra), whereby, the application 126-C filed by the defendant-petitioner for issue of Commission, has been rejected.

(3.) Briefly stated facts of the present case are that undisputedly, the plaintiff-respondent is the owner and landlord of the disputed shop in which the defendant petitioner is a tenant. The plaintiff-respondent has filed a P.A. Case No. 48 of 2011 under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 on the ground of bona fide need. Parties have already led their evidences. The case was being fixed for arguments. The plaintiff-respondent had already made his submission. Now at this stage, the defendant-petitioner had moved an application 126-C for issue of Commission on the ground that certain tenanted portion in the disputed building has been re-let by the plaintiff-respondent and therefore, Commission be issued to find out the facts. This application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 12.07.2017. Aggrieved with this order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.