CHANDAN DEVI Vs. IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE NAINITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. C. Agarwal, J. The facts of this case as narrated hereinafter bring into lime light a very depressing feature of our judicial system and show how an unscrupulous citizen aided and abetted by a mercenary lawyer can obstruct the course of justice when the Judicial officers are not conscien tious enough and have no resolution to ex ecute judicial orders.

(2.) THE petitioner is a landlady and respondent No. 6 is her erstwhile tenant who in spite of an order of eviction passed under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is putting all sorts of obstacles in the execution of the order of eviction. THE respondent No. 6 is occupying a shop situate at lahsil Line, Ram Nagar, district Nainital, on behalf of the petitioner. THE monthly rent agreed was Rs. 150/ -. THE landlady re quired the shop for her personal need to set up her son in business. She, therefore moved an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act for the eviction of the respon dent No. 6. THE said application was moved on 3rd September, 1985, and, after due con test by the respondent No. 6, was allowed by the prescribed authority by order dated 12th August, 1988. THE respondent No. 6 preferred an appeal to the District Judge that was dismissed on 30th June, 1990. THE respondent No. 6 then came to this Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 18073 of 1990 challeng ing the order of eviction and the writ peti tion was dismissed on 14th May, 1991.

(3.) EVEN before the aforesaid objections were finally disposed of, the tenant moved another application on 19th August, 1991, before the prescribed authority that there had been a compromise between him and the landlady whereby the landlady agreed to continue him as a tenant on enhanced rent. That application too was rejected vide the aforesaid orders dated 28th August, 1991.