Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9523 of 2021 Petitioner :- Purushottam Respondent :- Small Cause Court Meerut And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukesh Chandra Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- Vinayak Mithal
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sagar Mehrotra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vinayak Mithal, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3.
This writ petition has been filed praying for quashing the order dated 10.03.2021 passed by the Prescribed Authority in P.A. Case No. 24 of 2017, whereby the application of the petitioner, who is defendant in the suit, to issue Amin Commission on his expenses to get clear report of situation of shop in dispute was rejected.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Court below has wrongly rejected his application praying for calling of Amin Commission report. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 has opposed the argument and has submitted that the proceedings are pending under Section 21(1)(b) of U.p. Act No. 13 of 1972 before the Prescribed Authority since the year 2017. Only to further delay the disposal of the case, this application was filed on 07.08.2019 which was rejected on 10.03.2021 after several dates. The opposite party has managed to delay the proceedings for about two years as yet only on the basis of this application. He has submitted that the order passed by the Prescribed Authority does not suffers from any illegality and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
After hearing the counsels for the parties and going through the application dated 07.08.2019, Paper No. 50-Ga, filed by the petitioner before the Prescribed Authority for calling for a report of Amin Commissioner, this Court does not finds any justification for filing such an application by the petitioner. In the application aforesaid, it is only stated that for correct decision on merits, the correct situation of the shop is required to be brought before the authority by means of Amin Commission report. If such a report is not called, the petitioner will suffer irreparable harm and loss.
In proceedings of release under Section 21(1)(b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, there is no dispute regarding situation of the shop nor any such issue has been raised by the petitioner in his objection. The Prescribed Authority has rightly held that the application has been filed for release of accommodation and whether the accommodation/ shop is bonafidely required by the landlord or not is to be decided. In case, the petitioner wants to lead some evidence in this regard, he is free to do so but issuance of Amin Commission does not appears to be justified and has rejected the application.
The order of the Prescribed Authority does not suffers from any illegality and calls for no interference by this Court.
The writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly,
dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.8.2021 Rohit