RAKESH TIWARI, J. - (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.
(3.) 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.;