Indar Singh vs Ruchi Soni And 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 2536 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3311 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Indar Singh
 
Respondent :- Ruchi Soni And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anubhav Chandra
 

 
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

Heard Mr. Anubhav Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner.

The tenant-petitioner has moved an application in P.A. Case No. 75 of 2012 seeking to summon the landlady for the purpose of cross examination about the assertions made in her affidavit in support of the release application that she bona fide requires the demised shop. The tenant-petitioner seeks to cross examine the landlady because it is the tenant-petitioner's case that it has figured in her affidavit elsewhere that her husband is a Software Engineer posted at Mumbai where she stays with him. The tenant-petitioner, therefore, seeks to cross examine her about the need for the demised shop that she has set up and supported in her affidavit, the demised shop being located in Jhansi. The application has been rejected by the Prescribed Authority considering the stand of the landlady elsewhere that she stays at her in-laws' place located at 383/1 C.P. Mission Compound, Jhansi and not with her husband who stays in Mumbai, where he is employed.

It has weighed with the Prescribed Authority that the case is scheduled for address of arguments, where all evidence has been recorded. The Prescribed Authority has recorded it to be an effort to delay proceedings by the tenant. It does appear after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Anubhav Chandra at length in support of motion to admit this petition to hearing that this last minute effort to summon the landlady for the purpose of cross examination is indeed an effort to delay proceedings of the release application.

It is, however, clarified that this opinion would not prejudice the petitioner's right to question the impugned order in appeal from the Prescribed Authority's judgment. In case, the event before the Prescribed Authority goes against the tenant-petitioner, it shall be open to him to challenge the impugned order in the appeal carried from the judgment of the Prescribed Authority.

Subject to the above clarification, no case for interference with the impugned order is made out. This petition fails and is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 11.5.2022

Brijesh Maurya/I.Batabyal