- (1.) YATINDRA Singh, J. Sri Moti Lal, the contesting respondent, filed an applica tion for the release of the premises in dispute under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (the Act) for his personal need of residence at Kanpur. The petitioner is a tenant in the premises in dispute. He filed a written statement stating therein that the contesting respon dent docs not reside at Kanpur, but at Maudaha, district Hamirpur and he does not require the premises. The Prescribed Authority has allowed the application of the contesting respondents on 23-12-1998. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed an appeal during pendeney of the appeal file an application before the appellate Court for taking the money order receipts sent by one other tenant namely, Sri K. K. Trivedi to the contesting respondent show ing that he (Sr. K. K. Trivedi) had sent the rent to the contesting respondent at Maudaha, district Hamirpur. This was ob jected to by the contesting respondent and his son Dr. Anil Gupta, who filed a counter-affidavit to this application. In this counter-affidavit in paragraph 7, he mentioned, 'money order receipts of Shri K K Trivedi filed by the appellant are neither admissible nor authentic. It is also not signed by the respondent in my knowledge.
(2.) THEREAFTER the petitioner filed an application on 12-1 1-1999 for comparing the signature of the contesting respondent on the money order receipt with his signa ture on the vakalatnama filed by the con testing respondent. This application of the petitioner was dismissed on 14-11-1999. Hence the present writ petition. I have heard Sri Yogesh Agrawal, counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. K. Sinha, for the respondents. Sri Agrawal has submitted that before the appellate Court the question was whether the signa ture of the contesting respondent should be sent to an expert or not? There was no argument on the fticrit or the evidentiary value of the money order receipts. The appellate Court had no jurisdiction to go into the evidentiary value of the money order receipts. He further submitted that the appellate Court should have confined himself to the question of sending the sig nature of the contesting respondent for comparison. Sri Sinha counsel for the con testing respondent has slated that signa ture on the money order receipts arc those of the contesting respondent. He has no objection for taking the money order receipts on the record. In view of this statement the order of the appellant Court dated14-10-1999 is hereby quashed. The money order receipt may be taken on record. Sri Sinha further states that he does not wish to file any other document or evidence in rebuttal apart from the af fidavit already filed. The appellate Court now may decide the appeal after consider ing the evidence on record (including the money order receipts) without being in fluenced by any observations made by the appellate Court in the order dated 14-10-1999 or in this order. The parties will ap pear before the appellate Court on 29-11-1999 on which date the appeal may be decided on merits.
(3.) WITH these directions, the writ peti tion is disposed off. Petition disposed off. .;