Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1578 (ALL)

Sri Krishna Gopal Sharma v. Sri Padam Gupta

2011-07-04

RAKESH TIWARI

body2011
Rakesh Tiwari, J.;- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the order dated 13.4.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.12, Meerut in Misc. Appeal No. 160 of 2006, Krishna Gopal Sharma versus Padam Prasad Gupta whereby the Appellate Court has rejected the application of the petitioner for spot inspection of the shop in dispute in the nature of Alimarh. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent landlord filed an application for release of the shop in question under the tenancy of the petitioner under Section 21(1) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent And Eviction) Act, 1972 ( hereinafter referred to as the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972). 4. The petitioner contested the release application by filing his written statement denying the averments made therein. 5. After going through the record and hearing the parties, the Prescribed Authority allowed the release application vide his judgment and order dated 4.11.2006 directing the petitioner to vacate and handover peaceful possession of the property in dispute to the respondent within a period of two months. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 4.11.2006 the petitioner filed Misc. Appeal No. 160 of 2006, Krishna Gopal Sharma versus Padam Prasad Gupta. 7. During the pendency of the aforesaid appeal, the petitioner moved an application ( Paper no.115-Ga ) for spot inspection of the Almirah in qestion against which the respondent filed an objection (paper no.117-Ga). The appellate Court rejected the application of the petitioner vide order dated 13.4.2011, hence the instant writ petition. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate Court has not given any finding or observation that the Alimarh in question comes within the purview of Section 21(1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and that the court below should have made inspection of the property in question but it has committed mistake by not doing so. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner wants to linger on the matter by moving the application for spot inspection of the shop in question,hence the appellate Court has not committed any mistake in rejecting the aforesaid application. 10. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner wants to linger on the matter by moving the application for spot inspection of the shop in question,hence the appellate Court has not committed any mistake in rejecting the aforesaid application. 10. I have gone through the impugned order dated 13.4.2011 and find that the appellate Court while rejecting the application 115-Ga of the petitioner for spot inspection of the Alimrah in question has recorded a finding that there is no justification for the court to make spot inspection of the shop in dispute as the fact regarding shop in dispute is not in dispute. The appeal is pending since 2006. This writ petition has been filed against an interlocutory order. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. In the circumstances, the Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. 11. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.