- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for both the parties. First writ petition has been filed by Satish Kumar and Santosh Kumar and the second writ petition has been filed by Satish Kumar and the contesting respondent in both the writ petition is Anupam Narayan Malhotra the landlord. Through first writ petition order dated 18.1.2012 passed by Prescribed Authority/J.S.C.C. Moradabad in P.A. Case No. 23 of 2004 Anupam Narayan v. Satish Kumar and another has been challenged. The said case is a release application filed by respondent landlord Anupam Narayan against tenants petitioners for eviction/release on the ground of bona fide need under section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Through the second writ petition order dated 31.1.2012 passed by the same authority in the same case has been challenged, it has been stated by the petitioners that property in dispute comprised of two shops one of which is in tenancy occupation of Satish Kumar and the other in tenancy occupation of Santosh Singh. In the release application also the same thing was stated. In the release application Satish Kumar in O.P. No. 1, Santosh Singh O.P. No. 3 and it has been stated that one shop is in tenancy occupation of O.P. No. 1 and other in tenancy occupation of O.P. Nos. 2 and 3.
(2.) Through order dated 18.1.2012 challenged through the first writ petition, 4 applications filed by the tenants have been rejected. First application (73-C) was filed by opposite party No. 1, in the release application Satish Kumar through which expert report and expert evidence was filed and sought to be brought on record. The report was given by an architect which according to opposite party No. 1 related to other properties of the landlord including their valuation. The second application (77-C) was also filed by opposite party No. 1 Satish Kumar praying for inspection through Amin. The next application (No. 79-C) was also filed by Satish Kumar seeking a direction to the landlord to file certified copies of documents mentioned in the release application and for clarification of some facts. The last application 81-C was also given by Satish Kumar seeking permission to take on record additional counter-affidavit which was filed by him against additional rejoinder affidavit which had been filed by the landlord. The prescribed authority rejected all the applications.
(3.) As far as application 73-C is concerned, the Trial Court rightly observed that valuation of property was not relevant for deciding section 21 application. As far as application 77-C is concerned, the inspection was sought in respect of the properties mentioned in Annexures No. 1/1 to 1/5 to an affidavit of opposite party No. 1 himself which had already been filed. The Trial Court rightly held that as evidence had been adduced by the defendant hence it was not essential to get the property inspected by amin and it amounted to collection of evidence. As far as application No. 79-C is concerned that was also frivolous requiring the landlord to file sketch map of the properties mentioned in affidavit 68-Ga and documents pertaining to ownership of the said properties, partition documents, map approved by Moradabad Development authority lease deed of Maharaja Hotel, partnership deed in between landlord and his brother and any other relevant document including copies of licence of Maharaja Hotel Bar and restaurant, rent note of other property situate in Mohalla Bhattai and Amaroha belonging to the landlord. This application was also utterly frivolous. It appears that tenants are interested in delaying the proceedings and for the said purpose are filing frivolous applications. Re case application is pending for 8 years while under Rule 15 of the Rules framed under the Act it is to be decided within two months. No party can compel the other party to produce evidence which may help the party asking for the same. However, as far as application No. 81-C is concerned in my opinion it was wrongly rejected. The tenants' counter-affidavit to the supplementary rejoinder affidavit might be taken on record.;