BASHIR NISHA Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) YATINDRA Singh, J. Sri Devi Saran, respondent No. 2 is landlord of the shop in dispute. Admittedly, Abdul Hakeem was tenant of the same. He died and thereafter the tenancy right was inherited by his heirs namely, the petitioner as well as respon dent Nos. 3 and 4. Sri Devi Saran filed release application under Section 21 (l) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evic tion) Act, 1972 (the Act for short) which has been contested by respondent No. 3. So far service on petitioner and respon dent No. 4 are concerned it was held suffi cient on 9-2-1998. Subsequently the petitioner filed an application on 22nd February, 1999 to give her opportunity in the matter. This application has been rejected by the order dated 2-4-1999.

(2.) I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. D. Mandhyan counsel for the respondent No. 2. There is no illegality in this order. Sri B. D. Mandhyan states that in order to avoid any kind of technical objection in future, he will have no objection if the petitioner files whatever objection or af fidavit before the Prescribed Authority before 18th June, 1999 after serving a copy on the counsel for the respondent No. 2 appearing before the Prescribed Authority. The respondent No. 2 may file affidavit/document in rebuttal of the same by 9th July, 1999. This case may be filially taken up in the week commencing 12th July, 1999 or the date, which is convenient to the Prescribed Authority. Sri Rajesh Tendon, counsel for the petitioner states that on the date fixed in July, 1999 his client will not seek adjournment and will argue the case on merit.