MUSHFIQUE Vs. DEVENDRA PRASAD
LAWS(UTN)-2012-9-74
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on September 18,2012

Mushfique Appellant
VERSUS
Devendra Prasad Respondents

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 29.4.2011 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Junior Division) Ranikhet (for short the Prescribed Authority) in Rent Case No. 02 of 2007, Devendra Prasad and othrs Vs. Mohammad Tahir and others, 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 landlords -respondents herein was allowed. The petitioners have also assailed the judgment and order dated 19 -3 -2012 passed by the appellate Court in Rent Control Appeal No. 2 of 2011, whereby the appeal preferred by the tenant -petitioners has been dismissed.
(3.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the applicants -respondents herein moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act claiming themselves owner of House No. 163 situate at Khari Bazar, Ranikhet for release of the premises in dispute which is in occupation of the petitioners at the top storey of the said house. The said house was purchased by the applicants for their residential use on 8 -11 -2001. the opposite party -tenants despite request to vacate having been made did not vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the landlords. According to the landlords, the premises in dispute fell to the share of applicant no. 1 Devendra Prasad by oral compromise between them. The applicant no.1 has bona fide need for the said accommodation to live in along with his family comprising his wife, three daughters, his mother and he himself. Applicant nos. 2 and 3 also intend to live freely and independently in the portion of the house, which came to their share. Hence, the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was moved for release of the premises in dispute. The opposite -parties (petitioners herein) resisted the application by filing their written statement (paper no. 17 -C). They denied the allegations made in the application and contended that the applicants have purchased House No. 163, 163A and 163B and that they are residing at 1 63B portion of that house and the accommodation consists of two rooms, one small kitchen as well as one small toilet, which was forcibly demolished by the landlords -applicants. It has been denied that applicant no.3 requires the premises in dispute, because he herself had been allotted a Bungalow at Government Girls Inter College Ranikhet being Principal thereof and she has been residing in the said bungalow. It has also been contended that applicant no.2 Shankar Lal being employed in government service at Almora I.T.I. has been allotted government residence, where he is living with his family and his children are getting education there. The release application has been moved on false grounds just to harass the opposite parties and to evict them. It has also been contended that that the tenancy of the opposite parties is 60 -65 years old; that the applicant Devendra Prasad has his own house in Indra Basti at Ranikhet town, which is lying vacant for the last three months. It has also been contended that in case the release application is allowed, the opposite parties would suffer greater hardship. It has further been contended that despite best efforts having been made, the opposite parties could not get any suitable accommodation.;


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