This writ petition has been filed by the tenant-petitioner which arises out of proceedings under Section 21(1)-A of the Rent Control Act. The prescribed Authority rejected the application for release, the same has been allowed by the appellate court.
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a notice as provided under Section 21 was served upon him on 18.1.2011 and the case was instituted on 28.3.2013, before the expiry of the period of the notice which is six months.
Shri Lokendra Kumar Gupta, who appears for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 admits that thought this was the precise pleading in the release application itself, but at the appellate stage, additional evidence was filed which was taken on record subject to payment of costs. The costs were paid and accepted by the counsel for the tenant-petitioner relying upon the additional evidence, the court below has recorded a finding that in fact an earlier notice was also served was replied and if this notice is taken into consideration, the case has been instituted well beyond the period of six months.
In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents, three days time is granted to bring the material on record which may substantiate this submissions.
The learned counsel for the petitioner will have three days thereafter to file reply, if any.
Put up as fresh on 4th March, 2014. Till that date, the petitioner may not be evicted in pursuance of orders impugned in the writ petition.
Order Date :- 19.2.2014 Priyanka