GULAB RAI Vs. VIJAI RANI TANDON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against a judgment of the Additional District Judge, Kanpur, dated 16-5-1977. By the said judgment, the learned Additional District Judge allowed the appeal filed by Respondent No. 1 against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 4-3-1976 and sent back the case to the Prescribed Authority for deciding the application filed by respondent No. 1 under Sec. 21(1)(a) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 on merits."

(2.) AN application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act was filed by respondent No. 1 against the petitioner for release of a portion of house No. 24/9 A situate on the Mall Road. Kanpur on the allegations that her husband Dwarka Nath Tandon, who was previously employed in a private firm, had left the service, and that he required the premises in dispute for opening his own shop. She alleged that she was having a monthly income of Rs. 100/- from rent of the shop in dispute, and that the same was wholly insufficient to maintain her family. The respondent No. 1 further claimed that the petitioner was carrying on the business of readymade garments in another shop in the name of his wife, which was also situated on the Mall Road.

(3.) SRI K. M. Daval. counsel appearing for the petitioner, invited my attention to the documents which were filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1 as well as on behalf of the petitioner, and urged that the Additional District Judge gave the finding of exclusive ownership of the property in dispute in favour of the respondent No. 1 by misreading some documents and ignoring others. He took me through the various annexures filed along with the writ petition, counter-affidavit, and the re-joinder-affidavit. These annexures are the documents which had been filed by the parties before the Prescribed Authority in support of their respective cases. After interpreting these documents, learned Additional District Judge held that Vijai Rani Tandon was the owner of the portion of which the petitioner was the tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-, and that Variam Singh had no concern with the same. The finding arrived at by the court below is one of fact. Even if it is based on wrong inferences drawn from the evidence of the parties, it is not open to this Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction to interfere with the same.