NAND LAL S/O SRI JASSA RAM Vs. ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE/FTC VI, DEHRADUN & ANR
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Nand Lal S/O Sri Jassa Ram
Addl District Judge/Ftc Vi, Dehradun And Anr
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 25.7.2011 passed by Additional District Judge/FTC VI Dehradun in Rent Control Appeal No.101 of 2009 Smt. Savita Verma vs. Nand Lal, whereby the said court has allowed the appeal of respondent landlord and has set aside the order dated 27.6.2009 passed by Prescribed Authority.
(2.) Brief facts of the case, giving rise to this writ petition are, that the respondent no.2 is landlady of property no.18/48 old no.10 Dhamawala Bazar, Dehradun. The petitioner is tenant in one room of this property. The respondent no.2/landlady filed a release application before the Prescribed Authority against the petitioner stating that she needs the premises in dispute for her elder son as her son does not want to live with her. The release application was resisted by the petitioner by filing written statement and alleged that the landlady has concealed the factual aspect of the case that she is living in a rented accommodation and that she wants to use the property in dispute for commercial purposes. In support of their case, both the parties led documentary as well as oral evidence. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the evidence on record, learned Prescribed Authority, observed that comparative hardship is titled in favour of the tenant/petitioner since he has no source of income and has no alternate accommodation and accordingly, by judgment and order dated 27.6.2009, rejected the release application of the landlady/respondent no.2.
(3.) Being aggrieved by the order of learned Prescribed Authority, the landlady/respondent filed an appeal before the District Judge, which was registered as rent control appeal no.101 of 2009 and heard by Additional District Judge, Dehradun, who after hearing the parties and re-appreciating the evidence, observed that landlady is living in a rented accommodation which fact has also been admitted by the tenant in the written statement and accordingly held that learned Prescribed Authority has committed an error of law in not considering this aspect of the matter and accordingly set aside the judgment and order of the learned Prescribed Authority and allowed the release application of the landlady by its judgment and order dated 25.7.2011. In his order, learned Addl. District Judge has also observed that since the landlady is living in a separate rented accommodation, she has a right to use her property in her own way and found the need of the landlady to be bonafide and genuine. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of the appellate court, the tenant/petitioner has filed the present writ petition.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.