GYAN CHAND BISHNOI Vs. JAGDISH PRASAD AGARWAL
LAWS(UTN)-2012-10-88
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on October 15,2012

Gyan Chand Bishnoi Appellant
VERSUS
JAGDISH PRASAD AGARWAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
(2.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 14-9-2012 (Annexure No.1) passed by 1 st Additional District Judge, Rishikesh, (Dehradun) in Rent Control Appeal NO. 170 of 2010, Gyan Chand Bishnoi Vs. Jagdish Prasad Agarwal as well as the judgment and order dated 3-11-2010 (Annexure NO. 2) passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division) Rishikesh (for short the Prescribed Authority) in P.A.Case No. 3 of 2010, Jagdish Prasad Vs. Gyan Chand and has also prayed that the release application of the respondent be dismissed. By the order dated 3-11-2010, the release application moved by the respondent was allowed by the Prescribed Authority and the petitioner was directed to vacate the disputed premises within one month. The respondent-landlord was directed to pay compensation equal to two years' rent to the tenant-petitioner. By the order dated 14-9-2012. By the order dated 14-9-2012, the appeal preferred against the order passed by the Prescribed Authority has been dismissed by the appellate Court.
(3.) Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the respondent-landlord moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 ( for short the Act) for release of the disputed shop alleging therein that the disputed shop was given on monthly rent of Rs. 110/- under the tenancy of the petitioner and the disputed shop was allotted to the petitioner by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in the year 1982; that the applicant was earlier doing his business at old Tehri town and due to construction of Tehri Dam, the applicant had to be displaced and his entire business had come to an end; that the disputed shop is bona fide required by the applicant to settle his third son Ramesh Kumar in the business. Hence the release application was moved.;


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