NAND LAL Vs. PRABASH CHANDRA
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
HONBLE B.S.VERMA, J. -
(1.) HEARD Mr. Lokpal Singh, Advocate, 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 order dated
28.9.2007 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kashipur (for short the Prescribed Authority) in Rent Case NO.
(3.) OF 2005, Prabhash Chandra Vs. Lalman Foolmali as well as the order dated 30 -5 -2012 passed by the District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Rent
Control Appeal NO. 4 of 2007. By the order dated 28 -9 -2007, the
application for release moved under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban
Buildings ( Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for
short the Act) moved by the respondent -landlord was allowed by the
Prescribed Authority and by order dated 30.5.2012, the appeal preferred
by the tenant -petitioner has been dismissed.
3. Relevant facts giving rise to the present writ petition, in brief, as emerges out from the record are that the respondent -landlord
Prabhash Chandra moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act
for release of the shop in question before the Prescribed Authority
alleging therein that he along with his brother Subhash Chandra is the
landlord of the shop in question and four other shops adjoining to it and
in the year 2004 on account of oral partition between them, the shop in
question came to his exclusive share. According to the respondent, the
petitioner continues to be a tenant in the said shop on monthly rental of
Rs. 36/ - plus water tax @ 12% thereon. The petitioner has bona fide need
for shop in question to settle his son Shobhit Kumar Agrawal in business.
The respondent requested the petitioner to vacate the said shop time and
again but no heed was paid to his request, hence the respondent served a
notice dated 5/7 -9 -2005 upon the petitioner by registered post demanding
arrears of rent and to vacate the shop in question. The petitioner paid
the arrears of rent but did not vacate the shop in question. Ultimately,
on the ground of bona fide need, the release application was moved before
the Prescribed Authority.
The petitioner -tenant resisted the application and filed his written statement and admitted that the respondent is the co -landlord and
co -owner of the shop in question. The theory of oral partition is
imaginary. The petitioner admitted the monthly rent but denied liability
of water tax. The petitioner also denied the alleged bona fide need of
the landlord -respondent and alleged that there are many other vacant
shops in possession of the respondent. It was also claimed that the
petitioner runs a tea restaurant in the shop in question, which is the
only source of his livelihood. The petitioner has made sincere effort to
search for an alternative shop but failed. It was also alleged that the
balance of comparative hardship tilted in favour of the petitioner than
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.