AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sudhir Narain, J.—This is an application to review my order dated 10121998 dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner.
The landlord had filed an application under Section 21 (l)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the Act) that the petitioner is a tenant of the shop in dispute which was required to establish Om Prakash Respondent No. 4 in the writ petition in business. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application and on a comparative hardship, it was found that the petitioner has many shops and the landlord will suffer greater hardship. The petitioner preferred an appeal and Respondent No. 1 dismissed the appeal. The writ petition was argued by Sri K.K. Mishra and S.K. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner. On the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was granted one year''s time to vacate the disputed accommodation on filing undertaking on affidavit This review application has been filed on the ground that the landlord has another accommodation and the Court should have appointed a Commission to inspect the other shops where Respondent No. 4 may carry on his business.
I have heard Sri T.P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant in review and Sri P.S. Baghel, learned counsel for the contesting Respondent.
The case was argued by another counsel and whatever grounds were raised, they were decided. Now a new point has been raised to attack the finding on the order of the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority. This is not permissible under review application. It may be noted that the Prescribed Authority had found that the petitioner had another shop.
Learned counsel for the applicant had prayed one year''s time to vacate the disputed accommodation on giving an undertaking on affidavit. Learned counsel for the landlordRespondent states that the petitioner has already submitted an undertaking.
In view of the above, the review application is dismissed.