MUSHFIQUE Vs. DEVENDRA PRASAD
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
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
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.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.