BIMLA DEVI Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE/F T C
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Additional District Judge/F T C
Click here to view full judgement.
B.S.VERMA, J. -
(1.) BY means of this petition the petitioner has south a writ in the
nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 17 -12 -2005 passed
by respondent No.1, Additional District Judge/F.T.C. VII, Dehradun in
Rent Control Appeal No. 68 of 1998, Smt. Chandra Ran and others vs. Smt.
Bimla Devi and others, contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner Smt. Bimla Devi Mittal filed release application U/S
21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, before the Prescribed Authority/ 1st Addl. Civil Judge(S.D.), Dehradun on the ground that she is landlady of
shop No. 101/4, situated at Tilak Road, Dehradun, in which Deshi Ram was
tenant. After his death, the respondents, legal heirs of Deshi Ram are
occupying the shop as tenants. The applicant has a big family consisting
of the applicant herself, her husband and two married sons Vijay Kumar
and Ajay Kumar. In the family of Vijay Kumar, there are four members, he
himself, his wife and two children and in the family of Ajay Kumar, he
himself, his wife and are two daughters. Vijay Kumar has no independent
business and Ajay Kumar in the adjoining shop to the shop in dispute runs
his business in the name of Gift Gallery. The shop in possession of Ajay
Kumar has no sufficient space to display the items kept in the shop. He
has bonafide need to expand his business, so that the income may increase
to feed up the big family. On the other hand the original tenant Deshi
Ram has a son Praveen Kumar who does the transport business and he has
sufficient income by plying his three wheeler. Opposite party Smt.
Chandra Ran is a lady who maintain a veil and she does not do any
business in the shop in question. The applicant family has bonafide need
of shop in question and comparative hardship is also in their favour.
(3.) THE opposite party -tenants filed objection against the release application and alleged that the applicant -landlady has no bonafide need
of the shop in question. It was also alleged that the landlady and her
sons have sufficient income from agriculture and they have no need of any
other business. The applicant has also other shops in ground floor and in
the shop in possession of applicants has sufficient space to run the
business of Gift Gallery. The opposite party does not do the transport
business and he has five daughters out of whom four daughters are
married. It is further alleged that the applicant has no bonafide need of
the shop in question and the release application has been filed only with
a view to evict him from the shop.
The applicant before the Prescribed Authority also offered vacant space covered with shutter to the tenant/opposite party to run his
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.