- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity and correctness of the orders dated 22.2.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Bijnor/respondent no. 1 in Rent Control Appeal No. 05 of 2010, as well as order dated 17.2.2010 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nageena, Bijnor/respondent no. 2 in P.A. Case No. 9 of 2002, appended as Aannexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition. The facts of the case are that the applicant-respondent no. 3 moved an application under Section 21 (1)(a) and (b) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent And Eviction), Act 1972, hereinafter referred to as "Act No. 13 of 1972, for release of the tenament stating therein that the applicant-respondent no. 3 had purchased the property in question by means of a registered sale-deed dated 21.1.1995 from erstwhile landlord in which petitioner is a tenant @ Rs.100/- per month. It was averred in the release application that the building in question is more than 100 years, is in dilapidate condition and is required for personal need by the landlord. On receipt of the summons, the petitioner-tenant filed written statement denying the plaint allegation. The case set up by the petitioner-tenant before the Court below was that the above said property in dispute was purchased by the applicant-respondent no. 3 in the year 1995 and since then he wanted to evict the petitioner as such the petitioner had filed original suit no. 479 of 1995 before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Nageena, Bijnor in which temporary injunction was granted ; that during the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the applicant-respondent no. 3/landlord had taken possession from Sri Jaswant Singh, who was a tenant of the first floor in the building and since then the applicant-respondent no. 3 is pressing hard to get the property in question vacated, therefore he malafidely filed suit no. 730 of 2000 for permanent injunction. The said suit is still pending and temporary injunction has not been granted in favour of the applicant-respondent no. 3. During the pendency of P.A. Case, petitioner moved an application on 16.2.2006 before the Prescribed Authority being paper no. 72-C for issuance of a commission for inspecting the properties of respondent no. 3, alleging that applicant-respondent no. 3 is comfortably living with his family in a spacious building constructed on 1000 sq. yards of plot and has other properties also, as such there is no genuine and bonafide requirement of the shop in dispute to the landlord. The application was contested by respondent no. 3 by filing objection dated 2.3.2006. The Prescribed Authority vide his order dated 8.5.2006 rejected the application paper no. 72-C for issuance of commission. The order dated 8.5.2006 was assailed by the petitioner in writ petition no. 64457 of 2006 which was disposed of by order dated 27.11.2006 with the observation that petitioner may move a fresh application before the Prescribed Authority taking all these grounds which he had taken in that writ petition.
(3.) THE contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that pursuant to the order dated 27.11.2006, petitioner moved an application (paper no. 85-C) before the Prescribed Authority for compliance of order dated 27.11.2006. The said application was objected by the applicant-respondent no. 3 by filing objection on 11.1.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner moved other applications being paper no. 97-C and 102-C before the Prescribed Authority for filing some additional documentary evidence in order to demonstrate that respondent no. 3 is not having any need of the property in question and that copy of this application (paper no. 97-C) which is not available with the petitioner shall be produced during the course of argument. Subsequently, all the aforesaid applications being paper no. 85-C, 97-C and 102-C were allowed by order dated 17.2.2010. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.2.2010, petitioner preferred Rent Appeal No. 05 of 2010 before the Additional District Judge, Bijnor. He has also challenged the orders of the Prescribed Authority by which Applications, paper nos. 85-C, 97-C and 102-C were rejected on 8.3.1997 and 7.5.2008 respectively. It appears that the petitioner also moved another application being paper no. 22-C before the Appellate Court under section 34 Rule 22 along with Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. for receiving additional evidence on record and another application paper no. 24-C for issuance of commission. The Appellate Court vide its order dated 21.10.2010 allowed the application (paper no. 22-C) and rejected the rent control appeal no. 5 of 2010 vide his order dated 22.2.2011.;