RAKESH TIWARI,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) PETITIONER has filed this writ petition with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 26.5.2010 passed in P.A. Appeal No.2 of 2006, Ramesh Chandra Vs. Thakur Prasad and order dated 1.3.2006 passed in PA Suit No.9 of 2004, Thakur Prasad Vs. Ramesh Chandra, annexed as Annexure 1 and 2 to the writ petition. A further prayer has been made in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent not to evict the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned orders and except according to the provisions of law. Sri Siddharth Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned orders dated 26.5.2010 and 1.3.2006 have been challenged on the ground that the same stands vitiated on account of the fact that additional evidences filed by the petitioner to bring on record the huge income and properties of the landlord relevant for deciding the case were rejected, merely on an irrelevant ground that the source of the said documents has not been disclosed. He contends that from perusal of paragraph no.4 and 5 of the plaint it is clear that bonafide need set up by the landlord was admittedly for expanding his business and enhancement of the status in the society; that the High Court vide order dated 9.10.2007 had permitted the petitioner to challenge the order rejecting the additional evidence in case the appeal is finally decided against him and pursuant thereto, the petitioner had filed the aforesaid documents under Rule 16 (2)(c ) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Bjuilding Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction Rules, 1972 framed thereunder stating that additional evidence pertaining to the income of the landlord is relevant for adjudicating comparative hardship, hence the view taken by the athorities is absolutely erroneous in view of the specific need set up by the landlord;
(3.) IT is stated that the landlord has various shops, commercial properties and residential houses as detailed in the application appended with the supplementary affidavit; which had not been denied by the landlord in his objection; that the documents filed shows that the landlord is filing income tax return making investments and procuring assets to the tune of more than Rs.30 lakhs annually; that two sale deed executed on 20.6.2002 for consideration worth Rs. 3,43,770/- and 2,86,020/- respectively demonstrate the financial capacity of the landlord; that petitioner had also filed an application under Right to Information Act which was arbitrarily rejected on the ground that the court may summon the information, if required and that the landlord had also given a notice dated 28.8.2002 to one Ravinder Kumar, one of his tenants wherein he has admittedly averred that he is running an utensil shop, whereas in the present proceeding he has denied the same.;