VINOD KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. CHETAN PRAKASH VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the defendants-tenants/ petitioners.

(2.) This petition has been filed praying for the following relief:

(3.) Undisputedly, the plaintiff-respondent is the owner and landlord of the disputed shop. Following due process of law, he filed an application under Section 21(i)(a) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 being P.A. Case No.01 of 2007 (Sri Chetan Prakash Verma vs. Vinod Kumar and another) for release of the disputed shop for start of business by his grand-son Amit Kumar Verma, who is said to be an educated unemployed youth and has completed the hardware networking course. It is also stated in the release application that since the aforesaid grandson Amit Kumar Verma is not settled and is unemployed and as such he is not getting married. The defendants-tenants/ petitioners filed written statement. In paragraph-44 of the written statement, the defendants-tenants/ petitioners stated that the plaintiff-landlord has three sons, namely Sri Ram Kumar, Sri Vinod Kumar and Sri Sunil Kumar who are independently doing their individual business and have established their separate business. The parties led their evidences. The aforesaid P.A. Case No.01 of 2007 was allowed by the Prescribed Authority by judgment dated 17.04.2012. Copy of the judgment has not been filed along with this petition. It appears that against the aforesaid judgment, the defendants-tenants/ petitioners filed a Rent Control Appeal No.40 of 2012 (Vinod Kumar vs. Chetan Prakash Verma), which is pending disposal since last six years before the Appellate Court. Copy of the order-sheet of appeal has also not been filed by the defendants-tenants/ petitioners. The defendants-tenants/ petitioners filed an amendment application being paper No.71Ga, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 23.01.2018. Aggrieved with this order, the defendants-tenants/ petitioners have filed the present petition.