H.N. Seth, J. - (1.) This petition by the tenant arises out of a proceedings initiated under section 3 of U.P. Act No. III of 1947 for permission to file a suit for his ejectment from the shop in dispute. The case set up by the landlords was that they needed the disputed shop for carrying on business. It was alleged that the tenant had other shops at his disposal where he could conveniently shift his business and would not suffer any hardship. The claim that the landlords needed the shop for business was challenged by the tenant. It was denied that the tenant had any other shop where he could conveniently shift his cloth business. The shops alleged to be owned by him were in fact godown situate in a barren locality where cloth business could not flourish.
(2.) The prescribed Authority found the need of the landlords genuine. He also came to the conclusion that the tenant would not suffer any hardship if he was evicted from the shop in dispute as the cloth business could easily be removed to the other shops owned by him. On appeal the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the finding of the Prescribed Authority.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset raised the question that the learned Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal as he had been nominated to hear cases arising out of the P.A.C. revolt. The order of the learned Judge does not disclose that his jurisdiction to hear the appeal was challenged by the petitioner in appeal. In the counter affidavit it has been specifically asserted that no arguments were in fact advanced challenging the competency of the lamed Judge to hear the appeal. Although this fact has been controverted in the rejoinder affidavit I see no reason to doubt the correctness of assertion made in the counter affidavit. If the question of jurisdiction of the learned Judge to hear the appeal had been raised before him, the learned Judge must have dealt with the matter. The fact that such an argument is not noted in the impugned order indicates that no such point was raised before the learned Judge himself. Having omitted to raise this point at the appropriate stage, the petitioner is not entitled to raise it for the first time in this Court when the decision of the learned Judge has gone against him. On merits also I am not satisfied that the learned Judge was incompetent to hear the appeal. The learned Judge may have been nominated to deal with the cases arising out of the P.A.C. revolt but he continued to remain an additional District Judge and the case arising out of the Rent Control Act could be validly transferred to him for decision.;