- (1.) B. K. Singh, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Iqbal Ahmad for the respondent No. 2. Sri Sharad Kumar Srivastava has also put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 3.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority, Kanpur Nagar that in the disputed premises the Respondent No. 2 was living as tenant when the alleged ex pane judgment was put to execution is materially illegal. According to the learned counsel the property was purchased by the petitioner in the year 1985. Then the respondent No. 3 was living there as tenant. It is also urged that in the Municipal records the entry of tenant, namely, in favour of respondent No, 2 was corrected and the name of respon dent No. 3 was entered. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the lower court has illegally placed reliance on that record which was got tampered by respondent No. 2 as it related to a period prior to purchase of the property by the petitioner. In view of the above evidence the Prescribed Authority has drawn incorrect conclusion that respondent No. 2 was the tenant and the petitioner by getting the respondent No. 3 arrayed as party and showing him as tenant got the ex pane order passed. It has finally been submitted that since it is the case of total misreading of the evidence, this court should exercise extra ordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order.
(3.) THE learned counsel for respondent No. 2, the main contestant of the claim of the petition submitted that the lower court has considered the evidence led by the parties. THE same has correctly been appreciated. THE learned counsel has pointed out that the corrected voter list of 1993, the ration card of the respondent No. 2 from the house in question, bank pass book and T. V. receipts have been considered to hold that the respondent No. 2 was in possession of the house in question. In view of the above evidence, the lower court has come to the con clusion that the respondent No. 3 was fraudulently set up as the tenant and an ex pane order has been obtained. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3, who has put in appearance, has simply sought time to file reply to the contents of the writ petition. It is noteworthy that he is not aggrieved by the ex parte judgment and he is not seeking the prayer that the ex pane judgment or order be set aside. As such, I am of the opinion that no useful purpose would have served in permitting the respondent No. 3 to file counter-affidavit.;