SMT. MANISHA DEVI AND THREE OTHERS Vs. RAMESH RAWAT
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Smt. Manisha Devi And Three Others
Click here to view full judgement.
V.K. Bist, J. -
(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the judgment and order dated 07.09.2012 passed by Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Dehradun and the judgment and order dated 05.09.2013 passed by Addl. District Judge/Special Judge E.C. Act, Dehradun. A further prayer has been made to issue direction to the respondent not to evict the petitioners from the shop no. 105/2, Ward No. 3, Nagar Panchayat, Doiwala, District Dehradun.
(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the petition, are that the respondent filed an application for release of the shop in question for his own need under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against Swaroop Singh (husband of the petitioner no.1) in the Court of Prescribed Authority, which was registered as P.A. Suit No. 1 of 2012 'Ramesh Rawat v. Swaroop Singh' In support of his contention, the landlord filed several documents alongwith his affidavit and affidavits of Smt. Savitri Rawat, Mahesh Rawat and Suraj Prakash Rawat. Tenant-Swaroop Singh filed objection against the release application and denied the allegation made in the release application. The Prescribed Authority vide its judgment and order dated 07.09.2012 allowed the release application of the landlord. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, late Swaroop Singh preferred a Rent Control Appeal bearing No. 150 of 2012 'Swaroop Singh v. Ramesh Rawat' before the District Judge, Dehradun, which was subsequently transferred to the Court of Addl. District Judge/Special Judge E.C. Act, Dehradun. During the pendency of said appeal, Swaroop Singh died and his legal heirs and representatives were substituted and vide judgment and order dated 05.09.2013, the learned Addl. District Judge/Special Judge E.C. Act, Dehradun dismissed the said appeal.
(3.) Contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that the learned Prescribed Authority as well as the learned Lower Appellate Court did not consider the submission of the petitioners that the building in question was constructed in the year 1988, and first assessment of the building was done in the year 1989 inasmuch as, the rent of the shop in question is INR 2,500/-, therefore provisions of the Act are not applicable in the shop in question. It is further contended that the Courts below did not properly consider that only source of livelihood of the petitioners is the shop in question, whereas the landlord is a retired person and is getting pension. Apart from this, the landlord is also having three shops.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.