Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
The tenant petitioner has challenged the validity and correctness of the order dated 4.5. 2011 appended as annexure no. 6 to the writ petition whereby his application Paper no. 57 for directing the respondent to produce the will of her father-in-law, has been rejected on the ground that P.A. case no. 11 of 2010, Urmila Devi Vs. Jai Praksh, is to be decided on basis of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; that the petitioner acknowledges the respondent as landlord, hence he cannot resile from his stand by disputing that date of execution of the will is not disclosed by the landlady. The order dated 4.5.2011 reads thus:
^^04-05-2011 okn iqdkjk x;kA mHk; i{kksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k mifLFkr gSaA izkFkZuk i= dkxt la[;k 57 o mldh vkifRr ij lquk x;kA izkFkZuki= dkxt la[;k 57 izfroknh dh vksj ls bl vk'k; dk fn;k x;k gS fd foi{kh us viuh tokcnsgh esa ;g dFku fd;k gS fd oknuh us vius llqj v'ptZyky us fookfnr lEifRr dk cSukek djk;kA mDr dFku esa oknuh us ;g dFku fd;k gS fd mDr lEifRr mls vius llqj ls ctfj;s olh;r izkIr gqbZ gSA rFkkdfFkr olh;r dh dksbZ rkjh[k mlus vius lk{; esa ugha nh gSA vr% okfnuh ls rFkkdfFkr olh;r cgl ls iwoZ U;k;ky; esa nkf[ky djk;h tk;sA mDr izkFkZuk i= ds fo:) oknuh dh vksj ls vkifRr dkxt la[;k 58 izLrqr dh x;h gS ftlesa mfYyf[kr vk/kkj ij izkFkZuk i= fujLr fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh x;h gSa lquk rFkk i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA izLrqr okn ih-,- okn gS ftldks Hkou Lokeh o fdjk;snkj ds lEcU/kksa ds vk/kkj ij fuLrkfjr fd;k tkuk gSA izfroknh oknuh dks Hkou Lokeh ekurk gSA ,slh n'kk esa olh;r ryc fd;s tkus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; izrhr ugha gksrk gSA izkFkZuk i= 57 fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vkns'k izkFkZuk i= dkxt la[;k 57 fujLr fd;k tkrk gSa i=koyh okLrs fnukad 18-05-2011 dks is'k gksA g0 vLi"V 04-05-11 fu;r izkf/kdkjh @ y?kqokn U;k;k/kh'k lgkjuiqjA** The order dated 18.5.2011 appended as annexure no. 10 to the writ petition is also assailed by which another application Paper no. 59 filed by him for summoning the landlady to reply certain queries of the tenant petitioner in the aforesaid case, has been rejected by the Prescribed Authority. The order dated 18.5.2011 is as under :
^^U;k;ky; fu;r izkf/kdkjh @ y?kqokn U;k;k/kh'k lgkjuiqjA ih0,0 okn la[;k 11 lu~ 2010 Jherh mfeZyk nsoh - - - - -cuke - - - - - t;izdk'kA 18-05-2011 okn iqdkjk x;kA iqdkj ij mHk; i{kksa ds fo}ku vf/koDrkxr mifLFkr vk;sA foi{kh dh vksj ls izkFkZuk i= 59 bl vk'k; dk fn;k x;k gS fd vkosfndk }kjk bl ckr dk dksbZ lk{; vFkok vkosnui= esa ugha dgk x;k gS fd fookfnr nqdku ls if'pe okyh nqdku esa fLFkr lEifRr esa dc ls lqHkk"k dkjksckj dj jgk gSA vkosfndk }kjk vkosnui= esa ;g ekuk x;k gS fd vkosfndk dk ifr fodykax gS og dkjksckj djus esa ukdkfcy gSa ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd fookfnr nqdku ds iwjc esa fLFkr nqdku dks oknh o mldk ifr xksnke ds rkSj ij bLrseky djrs gSaA mDr ckrksa ds lEcU/k esa cUn lokykr dk mRrj nsus ds fy;s vkosfndk dks vknsf'kr fd;k tk;sA mDr izkFkZuki= ij vkosfndk dh vksj ls vkifRr vafdr dh x;h gSA lquk rFkk i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA i{kdkjksa dk lEiw.kZ lk{; i=koyh ij gSA i=koyh cgl ds Lrj ij rFkk cgl ds Lrj ij ;g izkFkZuk i= foi{kh }kjk ;g dFku djrs gq, izLrqr fd;k x;k gS fd fookfnr nqdku ls if'pe okyh nqdku esa fLFkr lEifRr esa dc ls lqHkk"k dkjksckj dj jgk gSA vkosfndk }kjk vkosnui= esa ;g ekuk x;k gS fd vkosfndk dk ifr fodykax gS og dkjksckj djus esa ukdkfcy gSA ;g Hkh dgk x;k gS fd fookfnr nqdku ds iwjc esa fLFkr nqdku dks oknh o mldk ifr xksnke ds rkSj ij bLrseky djrs gSaA mDr ckrksa ds lEcU/k esa cUn lokykr dk mRrj nsus ds fy;s vkosfndk dks vknsf'kr fd;k tk;sA vkosfndk ds fl)ku vf/koDrk }kjk izkFkZuk i= ij ekSf[kd vkifRr djrs gq, ;g dgk x;k fd izkFkZuk i= okn dks foyfEcr djus ds vk'k; ls fn;k x;k gSA dksbZ u dksbZ izkFkZuk i= nsdj foi{kh }kjk okn dks foyfEcr fd;k tk jgk gSA pwWafd i=koyh ij mHk; i{kdkjksa dk lEiw.kZ lk{; vk pqdk gS ftlds vk/kkj ij okn dk fulrkj.k fd;k tkuk gSA esjs vfHker esa layXu cUn lokykr dk mRrj nsus ds fy, vkosfndk dks vknsf'kr fd;s tkus dh dksbZ vko';drk ugha gS u gh bldk dksbZ vkSfpR; gSA izkFkZuk i= fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vkns'k izkFkZuk i= dkxt la[;k 59 fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA i=koyh okLrs cgl fnukad 26-05-2011 dks is'k gksA g0 vLi"V 18-5-11 fu;r izkf/kdkjh @ y?kqokn U;k;k/kh'k lgkjuiqjA** The facts of the case are that respondent no. 2 - the landlady filed an application under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction), Act 1972 for release of the shop under tenancy of the petitioner which was registered as P.A. case no. 11 of 2010. The tenant petitioner is contesting the aforesaid case and has filed his written statement. In her replication, the landlady stated that the property in dispute was received by her through will executed by her father-in-law.
After evidence of the parties was over and the matter was at the stage of final arguments, the tenant petitioner moved an application paper no. 57 for summoning the will so that the same may be contested. This application has been rejected by impugned order dated 4.5.2011. Just after two weeks, the tenant petitioner moved another application Paper No. 59 for summoning the landlady to give reply to certain queries of the tenant which has also been rejected by the Prescribed authority by order dated 18.5.2011.
While rejecting the aforesaid applications, the prescribed authority has found that evidence of the parties is over and the matter is at final hearing stage and the aforesaid applications have been moved just to delay disposal of the case.
The landlady in paragraph no.1 of the release application has stated that petitioner is her tenant in the shop in question at the rate of Rs. 450/- per month. Paragraph no. 1 of the release application reads as follows:
"1- ;g fd foi{kh fuEu foof.kZr o lhfer lEifRr esa vkosfndk ds dh vksj ls vadu [email protected]& :i;s ekgokj ekg dk fdjk;snkj pyk vk jgk gSA** This paragraph no. 1 of the release application has been admitted by the petitioner in his written statement in paragraph no. 1 thus :
^^1-- ;g fd izkFkZuk i= dh df.Mdk la0 1 Lohdkj gSA** Having admitted status of the respondent as landlady in his written statement, it is not open for the petitioner to move application for production of the will. It is settled position of law that a tenant cannot contest a will to save his/her tenancy. Admittedly, in this case the release application had been filed earlier and the fact of will was brought to the notice of court thereafter by the landlady during pendency of the application under section 21(1)(a) of the Act through her replication. Similar is the position about second application moved by the petitioner for summoning the landlady to reply certain queries as evidence of the parties on which decision is to be taken is already over and the matter is at the stage of final arguments. The petitioner having admitted the respondent as landlady, cannot summon the will to contest the ownership at that stage moreover so in a P.A. case in the facts and circumstances of the case and the court below appears to have rightly come to the conclusion that application has been moved to delay decision in the matter.
There appears to be no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders which are inter locutory in nature, hence this Court is not inclined to interfere in exercise of its extra ordinary powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dt/-7.7.2011 SNT/