S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) List revised. No one appears for the respondents. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) This case illustrates utter abuse of the Rent Control Act by the tenant. It is most unfortunate that tenant-petitioner happens to be a lawyer. Lawyers are expected to show more regard towards law than ordinary people.
(3.) Accommodation in dispute is commercial in nature. Petitioner is a lawyer, practising on the taxation side, hence he must be earning good income. Rent is Rs. 5 per month. The said rent is also not being paid by the petitioner on the ground that some persons are quarrelling for landlordship. This is excellent situation for the tenant-petitioner. The last nail in the coffin is the fact that in this writ petition landlord has not been impleaded as party. Petitioner who is tenant and respondent No. 2 Dhan Prakash, applicant for allotment are fighting for the tenanted shop and landlord is watching the drama from the gallery.;