Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2048 (ALL)

MEHRAJ v. RAVI PRAKASH VERMA

2007-08-06

RAKESH TIWARI

body2007
RAKESH TIWARI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that one Ravi Prakash filed an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Meerut for allotment of ground floor of House No. 25 Ghosi situate in Mohalla Lalkurti Meerut Cantt. , Meerut claiming it to be vacant. The disputed accommodation was inspected by the Rent Control Inspector who submitted his report dated 1. 10. 2002. The petitioners filed their objections to the report submitted by the Rent Control Inspector as well as to the allotment application filed under Rule 10 (9) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972. ( 3 ) THE Rent Control and Eviction Officer by order dated 4. 5. 2006 allotted the disputed accommodation under the tenancy of the petitioners in favour of Ravi Prakash on the basis of consent said to have been given by the landlord. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order dated 4. 5. 2006 the petitioners preferred civil Revision No. 95 of 2006 under section 18 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 before the District Judge, Meerut. ( 5 ) DURING the pendency of revision, the petitioners moved an application for filing original rent receipts issued by Kishori Lai and thereafter by Hari Mohan former owners/landlords of the petitioners father Abdul Shakoor in his favour to prove the facts that Abdul Shakoor was originally the tenant of Hari Mohan. ( 6 ) THE Revisional Court vide order dated 17. 7. 2007 rejected the aforesaid application which is challenged in this writ petition. ( 7 ) THE relevant portion of the order of the Revisional Court is as under: ( 8 ) IT appears from the record that both the parties advanced arguments before the Court below. The petitioners had moved an application for accepting the rent receipts etc. on record, which could not be produced before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. It is admitted fact that the petitioners were in possession of the said documents from since very beginning but they have not filed the same before the Court below, which appears from the averments made in application filed by the petitioners. ( 9 ) THE Court below has taken into consideration the fact that the case was fixed for 5. 7. ( 9 ) THE Court below has taken into consideration the fact that the case was fixed for 5. 7. 2007 and that the petitioner moved an application for adjournment on the said date, which was rejected. After hearing the arguments of respondent Nos. 1,2 and 4, 6. 7. 2007 was fixed for arguments of the revisionist, respondent No. 2. ( 10 ) FROM the record it appears that the case of the petitioners was that when they were preparing the case for final arguments on 5. 7. 2007 it came to the notice that the aforesaid rent receipts had not been filed by his erstwhile Advocate Sri Suresh Chandra Yadav, who was doing Pairvi of the case. It further appears that the petitioners were in possession of these documents from very beginning and not filed the same. ( 11 ) THE relevant extract of the averments made in the application are as under: ( 12 ) THE aforesaid extract clearly establishes that the petitioners were wanted to submit rent receipts at the fag end of the case when respondent No. 2 had argued the case finally and that his application for adjournment had been rejected. Furthermore, it is not the case of the petitioners that these documents were not available or they had discovered it and could not have filed earlier inspite of due diligence. What appears to be the case of the petitioners is that their earlier Advocate did not file rent receipts, which were with him. Thus, the petitioners cannot get any benefit of discovery of the documents which were in the knowledge of the petitioners and they had not filed the same even before the Prescribed Authority or even the Revisional Court or before hearing of the case. ( 13 ) THE contention of the Counsel for the petitioners that no reasons have been given by the Revisional Court in the impugned order while rejecting the application for accepting the documents on record is incorrect as this argument has been advanced before the Court, which has considered it, hence I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. ( 14 ) THE impugned order is interlocutory in nature. I am not inclined to interfere in an interlocutory order. ( 15 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition Dismissed. .