SANJEEV BHARGAVA Vs. RAKESH SINGHAL AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Prem Chand Jain, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner/tenant.

(2.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for the following relief:

(3.) Briefly stated facts of the present case are that in house property No.1/119/18, Kinari Bazar, Agra, Sri Shiv Nath Bhargava and Smt. Rama Bhargava were tenant of a shop by allotment order dated 31.5.1962. After their death the tenancy was inherited by the defendant-petitioner and he continued as tenant. The original owner of the aforesaid house property was one Smt. Asherfi Devi. After her death the ownership of the aforesaid house was succeeded by her sons including the son Sri Bhagwan Singhal. The aforesaid Smt. Asherfi Devi died in the year 1982. His son Bhagwan Singhal also died subsequently. According to the plaintiff-respondent/landlord, he became the owner and landlord of the disputed shop. The defendant-petitioner/tenant continued to admit the plaintiff-respondent as owner and landlord and consequently he continued to pay rent to him. On the ground of personal need of the disputed shop, the plaintiff-respondent/landlord filed a release application under Section 21(a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, before the Judge Small Cause Court/Prescribed Authority, Agra, which was registered as P.A. Case No.62 of 2009 (Sri Rakesh Singhal Vs. Sanjeev Bhargava and another). In paragraph 2 of the release application, the plaintiff-respondent/landldord clearly stated that he is the landlord of shop No.1/119/18, Kinari Bazar, Agra, wherein Sri Shiv Nath Bhargava and Smt. Rama Bhargava were tenant on behalf of the applicant in the aforesaid shop and they are reported to be dead and Sri Sanjeev Bhargava (defendant-petitioner/tenant) has stepped into their shoes. In his written statement he admitted the aforesaid averments of paragraph 2 of the release application. In the written statement he has not disputed the ownership and landlordship of the plaintiff-respondent with respect to the disputed shop rather he took the stand that he has not defaulted in payment of rent to the plaintiff-respondent/landlord and has been paying rent enhanced from time to time. He also took the stand that the plaintiff-respondent is not in bonafide need of the disputed shop. Before the Prescribed Authority, the defendant-petitioner/tenant has not raised any objection to the ownership and landlordship of the disputed shop of the plaintiff-respondent rather he admitted that the plaintiff-respondent is the owner and landlord of the disputed shop. Considering the pleadings, evidences and submissions of the parties, the Prescribed Authority/Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Court No.6, Agra, allowed the release application by order dated 13.2.2017. Aggrieved with the said order the defendant-petitioner filed a R.C.M.A. No.56 of 2017 (Sanjeev Bhargava Vs. Rakesh Singhal), which is now said to be pending in the Court of Additional Session Judge, Court No.17, Agra. During pendency of the aforesaid appeal the defendant-petitioner filed an application on 10.10.2017, praying that the respondent-landlord be ordered to produce the alleged Will of Smt. Asherfi Devi and alleged family settlement, prior to proceeding with the appeal. This application being paper No.25-C has been rejected by the impugned order dated 25.11.2017, passed by the Additional Session Court No.17, Agra, concluding as under: