- (1.) O. P. Srivastava, J. Petitioners file rejoinder affidavit. Keep on record. Jagmohan Agarwal-petitioner No. 1, who was admittedly the tenant in the shop in question, moved an application purporting to be under Rule 10 (6) (a) of U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972, framed under the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, before the District Magistrate for permission to induct the petitioners No. 2 and 3 as partners and to carry on business in the name and style of M/s. Uma Vastra Bhandar.
(2.) AT the very outset, it may be pointed out that in the said application, no one except State was arrayed as party. It was only in the body of application in para-2 the reference of landlord finds place. The Rent Control Inspector presumably under the direction of District Magistrate made local inspection and submitted report. The process server also submitted report regarding service of notice. The petitioner Jagmohan Agarwal filed affidavit in support of his contentions. In absence of any objection and upon consideration of the evidence and contention of Jagmohan Agarwal, Additional District Magistrate allowed the application of Jagmohan Agarwal. Laxmi Narain Agarwal, Kailash Chand Agarwal, Ashok Kumar Agarwal and Ghanshyam Das Agarwal claiming themselves to be landlords, filed revision before the District Judge, inter alia, on the ground that order of District Magistrate was ex parte and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to them before the order dated 10. 5. 2000 was passed. Learned District Judge after hearing the parties' Counsel remanded the matter for deciding afresh after hearing both the parties.
(3.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the tenant Jagmohan Agarwal along with two persons inducted as partners by order of District Magistrate against the revisional order dated 12. 9. 2007. Since the petitioners disputed that the order of District Magistrate was not ex parte as claimed by the landlords, the matter has been heard on this point alone.;