- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. It appears from the order dated 13.7.2009 that in view of the fact that point involved in this writ petition is similar and identical to that of Writ Petition No. 32591 of 2009. This writ petition was connected with the aforesaid writ petition No. 32591 of 2009 and an interim order was passed by His Lordship Hon. Pankaj Mithal, J. at the admission stage in the following terms. The point involved in this writ petition is similar and identical to be one arising in writ petition No. 32591 of 2009. Therefore, connect and list along with the above referred writ petition on 20.7.2009. In the meantime Sri K.K. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondent may file counter-affidavit. For the same reasons as contained in the order passed in the above referred writ petition/the eviction of the petitioner from the premises in dispute shall remain stayed till the next date of listing in pursuance of the orders impugned in the writ petition.
(2.) The present writ petition No. 33870 of 2009 has come up for admission today along with the record of writ petition No. 32591 of 2009 in view of the order passed by the Court on 3.9.2010 thus: Sri K.K. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondents states that the facts of this case are covered by the judgment rendered in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32591 of 2009. Certified copy of the judgment has been produced by him before this Court. It appears that the interim order has been granted in this case on the basis of interim order granted in the aforesaid connected writ petition, hence it is imperative to look into the judgment filed by Sri K.K. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondents in this case. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-states that the facts of this case are not covered by that judgment. List peremptorily on Monday dated 6.9.2010.
(3.) A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri K.K. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondents, inter alia, that the petitioner has his own house which is clear from the findings recorded by the Courts below. In this view of the matter, the petitioner cannot remain as tenant in the house in dispute. He further submits that the Court in a similar issue and controversy involved in earlier writ petition No. 32591 of 2009, Kamla Devi v. Munni Devi and another has considered the question of acquiring a house in a vacant state by the tenant. He has placed reliance upon the following extract of the findings recorded by the Court below:;