MUKESH Vs. XI ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 7-10-95 passed by the Prescribed Authority and the order dated 12-12-97 passed by the appellate Court.

(2.) THE relevant facts for the purposes of the prekent writ petition are that the father of petitioner No. 1 and husband of petitioner No. 2 Nathu Mai Agarwal was tenant of the shop situate on the ground floor of building No. 220, Ganj Bazar, Meerut Cantt, hereinafter referred to as the shop in dispute only. THE tenancy started in 1940. After the death of Nath Mai Agarwal, the petitioners became tenant of the shop in dispute. Respondent No. 3 Smt. Swadesh Ahluwalia is the landlady.

(3.) THE parties filed evidence before the Prescribed Authority. THE Prescribed Authority on 7-10-95 allowed the applica tion of the landlady. THE petitioners filed an appeal against the judgment of the Prescribed Authority. It is stated that the petitioners filed an affidavit before the appellate Court that the landlady has con cealed the real fact regarding the availability of shops with her and in the affidavit it was also brought to the notice of the Court that respondent No. 2 got pos session of other shop in P. A. Case No. 142 of 1989 which was in possession of Shitla Prasad, therefore, the need of the landlady has been fulfilled. It is also stated that a Writ Petition No. 27187 of 1996 was filed against an interlocutory order which was allowed on 26-8-96. THE matter was remanded to the appellate Court to decide the same in the light of the observations made by the High Court. THE petitioners have filed that judgment as Annexure-9 to the writ petition. It is stated that the petitioners have filed an application for inspection. THEy have also filed an af fidavit before the District Judge and docu ments to prove that Sanjeev Walia, and Tarun Walia are connected with number of family Firms.