S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) Learned Counsel for the landlord-respondent states that in spite of letter written by him, his client has not responded for filing supplementary affidavit as directed by order dated 15.12.2005. Through the said order supplementary affidavit was directed to be filed stating therein the present place of posting of Vijai Kumar son of landlord-respondent No. 2 for whose need release was sought. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also states that his client has also not responded.
(2.) This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/ release proceedings initiated by landlord respondent No. 2 Janki Prasad. In the release application, it was stated that accommodation in dispute was required for residence of Vijay Kumar son of the landlord. Vijai Kumar is an employee of railways. Release application was registered as P.A. Case No. 4 of 1987 on the file of prescribed authority/Munsif Moradabad. Application was rejected on 15.12.1989. Against the said judgment and order, landlord respondent No. 2 filed R.C. Appeal No. 130 of 1990. Appellate Court allowed the appeal on 21.4.1990. set-aside the judgment and order passed by the prescribed authority and allowed the release application of the landlord. Appellate Court observed that during pendency of appeal Vijay Kumar had been transferred to Moradabad. Vijay Kumar is holding a transferable post. Chances are that since 1990 till date he may have been transferred to several other places. As learned Counsel for the landlord can not inform the Court about the present place of posting hence the very basis on which Appellate Court allowed the appeal disappears. Transfer of Vijay Kumar to Moradabad where property in dispute is situate during pendency of appeal was the only ground on which Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the prescribed authority.
(3.) Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Judgment and order passed by the Appellate Court is set-aside. Judgment and order passed by the Trial Court is restored.;