RAVINDRA Vs. SUSHIL BABU VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Mukesh Kumar, learned counsel for the defendant-tenant/ petitioner and Sri Sushant Misra, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent/ landlord.

(2.) Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the plaintiff-respondent is landlord and owner of the disputed house situate bearing Municipal No.02/83, Mohalla Girdhar Lal Street, Pargana Pahara, Farrukhabad, in which the petitioner is the tenant in one of the shops. The aforesaid house was purchased by the plaintiff-respondent by registered sale deed dated 13.12.2011. The plaintiff-respondent has two sons, namely, Ramji Verma and Shyamji Verma. At the time of filing of the release application being P.A. Case No.6 of 2016, his son Ramji Verma was already married and has one daughter. The aforesaid Ramji Verma was stated to be unemployed and for setting up of business of general store for his employment, the aforesaid release application was filed. In the aforesaid release application being P.A. Case No.06 of 2016, the plaintiff-respondent has led his evidences. Opportunities have been afforded to the tenant-petitioner to lead evidence but he has filed an Application 42ga2 for issue of Amin Commission for inspection of Radhey Guest House and the house at Katra Boo Ali from where Ramji Verma is allegedly carrying on milk dairy business. The allegations made by the tenant petitioner in the application for issue of Amin Commission, were completely denied by the plaintiff-respondent and it was clearly stated that neither his son Ram Ji Verma nor his wife Geeta Devi is carrying on business of milk dairy from the shop situate at Katra Boo Ali. The fact is that from the said shop, a tenant Gaurav Verma son of Jitendra Babu Verma is carrying on business of milk dairy. Under the circumstances, it was for the tenant-petitioner to lead his evidences. He cannot require issue of Amin Commission to collect evidences.

(3.) I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner.