POONAM SRIVASTAV,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Indra Mani Tripathi, counsel for petitioners and Sri Swapnil Kumar, counsel for caveator/respondent no.2.
(2.) THE judgment and order dated 6.12.2007 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), court no.17, Etah, confirmed by Additional District Judge, court no.2, Etah, in Rent Appeal No. 5 of 2007 vide judgment and order dated 29.7.2009 are impugned in the instant writ petition. Respondent no.2 filed release application under Section 21 (1)(a) of U.P. Act No.XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to get shop in dispute bearing Nagar Nigam No.600 released before Prescribed Authority. The counsel for tenant/petitioners has urged before me and tried to bring to my notice a number of applications moved by tenants before trial court whereby prayer was made for calling evidence from landlord on various questions, especially to clarify ownership and title and also for cross examining witness. These applications were moved on 7.9.2004, 15.7.2005 and 14.2.2006. Grievance of petitioners is that all these applications were rejected by trial court on 10.2.2005, 31.1.2006 and 27.10.2006 respectively. Petitioners claim that his grand father Chiranji Lal had taken shop on rent from grand father of respondent no.2 namely Ram Swaroop Ji Agrawal in the year 1955 and since then they are in continuous possession. Release application was allowed and the same has been confirmed in appeal.
(3.) THE counsel for petitioners submits that trial court framed only three issues for consideration namely: "1. Whether need of plaintiff is bonafide. 2.Whether comparative hardship plaintiff would be more than that of defendant if release application is rejected or whether comparative hardship of defendant would be more than that of plaintiff if release application is allowed. 3. What relief plaintiff is entitled." ;