AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sudhir Narain, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order dated 6111999 allowing the application filed by Respondent No. 3 in the proceedings under Section 21 (l)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 pf 1972 (in short the Act).
The petitioner filed an application for release of the disputed premises on the ground that he bona fide requires it. During the pendency of the proceedings Ashok Bhatia, Respondent No. 3 filed an application for impleadment on the allegations that he is tenant of the disputed premises. The Prescribed Authority has allowed the application by the impugned order dated 6111999.
Sri B.N. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the petitioners has assailed the finding recorded by the Prescribed authority that the Respondent No, 3 is tenant of the disputed premises. Respondent No. 4 has prima facie on evidence adduced by the Respondent No. 3, came to the conclusion that the Respondent No. 3 is tenant of the disputed shop. The application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act has not yet been finally decided. It will be open to the parties to lead evidence afresh and decide the question again framing an issue as to whether the Respondent No. 3 is tenant of the disputed premises. It will, however be open to Respondent No. 3 to contest the application to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings.
In view of the above the writ petition is dismissed. . Petition dismissed.