MOHAMMAD TAHIR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) AS the rent of the property in dispute, which is a shop, situated in jhansi, is only Rs. 100/- per month and that is also not admittedly being paid for several months (this information has been supplied by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on inquiry by the Court), hence tenant-petitioner is adopting all the possible means to delay the proceedings of P. A. Case No. 43 of 2005, which is a release application on the ground of bona fide need filed by the landlord-respondent No. 3 under section 21 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction), Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ). In the release application it has been stated that the shop in dispute is required for respondent No. 4, who is grandson of respondent No. 3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the release application it was stated that respondent No. 4 Azharuddin was 75 per cent disabled and phostotat copy of some certificate to support that contention was filed by the landlord. The tenant-petitioner filed application seeking a direction of the Court to the landlord-respondent to produce original certificate. The said application was rejected on 31. 1. 2008 by the Prescribed Authority/j. S. C. C. Jhansi. Undaunted by the said order another similar application was filed by the petitioner which was rejected on 14. 2. 2008. These two orders have been challenged through this writ petition.

(3.) I do not find any error in the impugned orders. Even if the contention of the petitioner to the effect that respondent No. 4 Azharuddin is totally disabled is ultimately found to be correct, in that eventuality his need for the shop in dispute would stand on a better footing.