Rent Control No. 106 of 2013. Case: M/s. New Libas Through Its Propritor & Another Vs Prescribed Authority, Addl. Judge, Small Causes, Lucknow & Ors.. High Court of Allahabad (India)
| Case Number | Rent Control No. 106 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Ramesh Chandra Saxena, Yogesh Saxena, Advs. and For Respondent: Manish Kumar, A. B. Singh, Advs. |
| Judges | Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. |
| Issue | Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Section 21 |
| Judgement Date | September 11, 2013 |
| Court | High Court of Allahabad (India) |
Judgment:
Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.
Heard Shri Ramesh Chandra Saxena learned counsel for the tenant petitioners. The accommodation in dispute is commercial in nature, situate at Hazratganj, the most expensive market of Lucknow. Petitioner is tenant of the same on behalf of landlords respondents 2 to 5 Vinay Kumar Jain and others @ Rs.300/- per month. The current monthly market rent of the property must be more than 100 times of the existing rent and this is the sole attraction for the tenant to delay the proceedings of the release application which has been filed by the landlords respondents under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against the tenant for the release of the accommodation in dispute on the ground of bonafide need which has been registered as P.A. Case no. 22 of 2008, Vinay Kumar Jain & others vs. New Libas & another. All the possible provisions including the provisions provided in section 34 of the Act have been utilized by the petitioner to delay the proceedings.
Written statement was filed on 27.01.2010. Landlords got the release application amended. Petitioner tenant was given opportunity to file additional W.S. which was filed on 14.5.2012. Thereafter, tenant filed application for the amendment of the W.S. on 23.8.2012 which was rejected on 07.9.2012. Against the said order petitioner filed writ petition no. 89 (R.C.) of 2012 in which on 25.9.2012 an order was passed issuing notice to the respondents and directing that till the next date of listing the prescribed authority shall not deliver final judgement. The said writ petition is still pending.
Thereafter, petitioner filed application of inspection through some advocate commissioner on 08.10.2012. The said application was decided on 20.02.2013 and it was held by the prescribed authority that if found necessary, commission could be issued after filing of the evidence by the petitioner. Against the said order petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 33 of 2013 (R.C.). This court by a detailed judgement dismissed the same on 26.7.2013.
The petitioner thereafter adopted another tactics to delay...
To continue reading
Request your trial