BIMLA DEVI Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE/F T C
LAWS(UTN)-2012-9-77
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on September 04,2012

BIMLA DEVI Appellant
VERSUS
Additional District Judge/F T C Respondents

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 tea shop.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.