CHANDAN SINGH Vs. IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE MATHURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner, who is tenant of the premises in dispute, i.e.. premises No. 2166/2. Dampler Nagar, Mathura. which was allotted to him on 27.4.1978. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 16.8.1980 passed by the respondent No. 1. which is Annexure 5 to the writ petition and order dated 20.11.1981 so far as it relates to the dismissal of the appeal of the petitioner passed by the respondent No. 1.

(2.) The brief facts, as stated by the petitioner in the petition are that the house in question was assessed at Rs. 30 in the year 1970. It is stated that the presumptive rent at the time of allotment of the aforesaid building was fixed at Rs. 175 by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer while making allotment in favour of the petitioner. The allegations of the petitioner are that since the presumptive rent was exhorbitant. therefore, the petitioner filed an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Mathura under Section 8/9 of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act only. The application of the petitioner was contested by the landlord-respondent No. 3. The petitioner and the respondents in support of their respective claim filed written statements of the witnesses and of their own. The landlord filed an affidavit of one Sri H. Chandra, Sales Tax Officer, who was previous tenant of the accommodation in question. An application was filed by the petitioner with a request to cross-examine Sri Harish Chandra, the earlier tenant. But this application of the petitioner was rejected. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer has fixed Rs. 175 as monthly rent by order dated 16.8.1980. The petitioner, aggrieved by this order filed an appeal. The landlord also filed an appeal and stated that the rent at least Rs. 200 be fixed. The District Judge dismissed both the appeals on 20.1.1981. The petitioner has only challenged this order.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.