HAMIDULLAH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE BIJNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a tenant's petition as a consequence of two non-concurrent judgments. The Prescribed Authority rejected the release application of the landlord filed under section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

(2.) THE premises are being utilised as a shop by the tenant, and the landlord requires the same premises in effect, for the same purpose. In appeal, the learned District Judge, Bijnor upset the judgment of the Prescribed Authority.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner next contended that the report which had been filed by the Commissioner was accepted on record without affording him an opportunity to file objections. It has not been denied that on the day the commission was executed the tenant was not ignorant of the fact that the Court Commission was being carried out. The tenant was totally aware that a commission was executed to report to the court and could have filed objections in case he seriously wanted to.