- (1.) List is being revised. Neither learned Counsel for the opposite parties No. 3 is present nor there is any request for passing over or adjournment of the case. Heard Sri Umesh Chandra, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 6.12.1994 passed by the opposite party No. 1 and the order dated 10.10.1991, passed by the opposite party No. 2 as contained in Annexure Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, to the writ petition.
(3.) Brief facts, giving rise to the instant writ petition, are that opposite parties No. 3-landlord let out a shop in question to the petitioner in the year 1974 on a rent of Rs. 40/- per month. According to the petitioner, opposite parties No. 3 filed a suit, bearing No. 54 of 1978, under section 20 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for eviction of the petitioner from the shop in question. Notice was issued. In reply thereof, the petitioner appeared and filed his written statement. The Prescribed Authority/Munsif, Kheri, vide order dated 24.10.1985, while observing that petitioner was the real tenant of the opposite party No. 3 and he was not sub-tenant of opposite party No. 4-Sri Rajendra Mohan Seth, dismissed the suit.;