RAMESH KUMAR KANAUJIYA Vs. BHANA DEVI
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Ramesh Kumar Kanaujiya
Click here to view full judgement.
B.S.VERMA, J. -
(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated
28 -9 -2011 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dehradun (for short the Prescribed Authority) in P.A. Case No.
31 of 2009, Smt. Bhana Devi Vs. Sri Ramesh Kumar Kanaujiya and another, whereby the application moved under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban
Buildings ( Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for
short the Act) by the landlady -respondent herein was allowed. The
petitioners have also assailed the judgment and order dated 6 -8 -2012
passed by the appellate Court, whereby the appeal preferred by the
tenant -petitioners has been dismissed.
(3.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the landlady -respondent moved an application for release of the disputed
shop no. 48/1 situate at Nachghar, Kaulagarh Road, Dehradun, under
Section 21(1)(a) of the Act alleging therein that the disputed shop was
given on monthly rent of Rs. 250/ - to the petitioner no.1. In addition to
the rent, the tenant was required to pay taxes; that the tenant has been
engaged in permanent employment in Opto Electronic Factory Raipur Road,
Dehradun, but despite that the tenant -petitioner no.1 started sending
rent on behalf of the petitioner no.2, who is his wife. It has been
pleaded that since the landlady requires the disputed shop to engage her
husband in the employment, therefore, the landlady has bona fide
requirement for the disputed shop. It has also been pleaded that the
tenant -petitioner no.1 has already got employment, therefore, he has not
need for the disputed shop. It has also been alleged that in case the
release application is rejected, the landlady would suffer greater
hardship. Hence, the application for release was filed.
The application was resisted by the opposite parties filing their written statement/objection (paper no. 14A). It has been admitted
that the applicant is the landlady of the disputed shop, but alleged that
the opposite party no.1 is not the tenant rather opposite party no.2 is
the tenant in the disputed shop and the opposite party no.2 has been
paying the rent to the landlady. The landlady has refused to accept the
rent since December 2008, therefore, the opposite party no.2 started
depositing the rent under Section 30 of the Act. It has been denied that
the husband of the landlady has retired from O.N.G.C. and the disputed
shop is required to engage him in the business. The bona fide need of the
applicant landlady was disputed. It has been pleaded that if the release
application is allowed, the opposite party no.2 would suffer greater
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.