AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Yatindra Singh, J.—Dr. Girdhari Lal was landlord of the premises in dispute. He filed an application for release of the house in question for the need of his son Deen Dayal. This application was allowed on 2441991. Petitioner filed an appeal. During pendency of appeal he filed an application for taking subsequent events on record. Objections were filed on this application but no order was passed thereupon. Subsequently the petitioner''s appeal was also dismissed on 9101995, hence the present writ petition.
I have heard Sri Siddharth, Counsel for the petitioner and Sri I.P. Singh, Counsel for contesting respondent. It is not disputed that the petitions had filed an application on 15121993 to bring certain facts on record that Sri Deen Dayal, for whom need was set up, has already acquired another house in the name of his wife and the alleged need of landlord has finished. On this application objections were also filed. This is also not disputed neither this application was disposed of, nor any consideration was given on this application at the time when appeal was finally decided on 9101995. It is also not disputed that subsequent event during pendency of proceedings have to be (sic) into. In view of this order dated 9101995 is quashed. The parties may appear before the District Judge Meerut on 1792001. The District Judge Meerut may decide the case himself or transfer it to any other competent Court. The appellate Court may, if possible, decide the case at an early date if possible within three months.
With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.