SHAKUNTALA DEVI Vs. URMILA AGARWAL
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 19-9-2009 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dehradun (for short the Prescribed Authority) in P.A. Case No. 53 of 2006, Smt. Urmila Agarwal Vs. Shri Jot Singh Ranawat (deceased) substituted by his L.R. Smt. Shakuntala Devi as well as the judgment and order dated 22-3-2012 passed by the Additional District Judge/F.T.C-7 Dehradun in Rent Control Appeal No. 136/2009. By the order dated 19-9-2009, the release application of the landlady moved under Section 21(1)(a) and Section 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the Act) was allowed. By the order dated 22-3-2012, the appeal preferred by the petitioner-tenant against the order dated 19-9-2009 has been dismissed.
(3.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the landlady-respondent moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) and Section 21(1)(b) of the Act on the ground that she is the owner and landlady of the property known as 104, New No. 157, Dakara Cantt. Dehradun (for short the premises in dispute). It was alleged that the premises in dispute is situate on the ground floor consisting of two rooms; that the premises in dispute was previously owned by one Smt. Manbhari Devi and the applicant purchased the said property by way of a registered sale deed dated 29-3-1994; that the premises in dispute was let out for residential purposes @ of Rs. 17/- per month; that the O.P.-tenant inducted one Bhagwan Singh Panwar as a sub-tenant; that the premises in dispute is an old construction of more than 100 years and the same is in a dilapidated condition and requires demolition and reconstruction. In paragraph no. 10 of the release application, it is stated the premises in dispute which is in occupation of the opposite party bona fidely required by the applicant. In Dehradun, after it became capital, business of property is gone up and that the applicant is not residing in Himachal Pradesh, where the business is not flourishing now and the applicant wants to shift to Dehradun and wants to reside in the premises in dispute after setting reconstruction. It was also pleaded that the opposite party has his own property in Dakra Cantt and that Shakuntala Devi has her own residential accommodation.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.