PREMA JOSHI Vs. DINESH CHANDRA GOEL
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
DINESH CHANDRA GOEL
Click here to view full judgement.
Brahma Singh Verma, J. -
(1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 30.11.2012 passed by Additional District Judge, Nainital, in Rent Control Appeal No. 20 of 2011 Dinesh Chandra Goel v. Smt. Prema Joshi (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition).
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Shri Banshidhar Joshi had taken on rent the premises in dispute on monthly rent of Rs. 15/ - for the purpose of running his business. In the year 2005, the respondent purchased the property in dispute by way of sale deed. The landlord/respondent moved a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the Act) before the Prescribed Authority on the ground of need for his daughters -in -law for their business. The release application was contested by the tenants/petitioners by filing written statement and denying all the allegations raised in the application. In the written statement, the tenants/petitioners pleaded that the respondent/landlord is a rich person and he is not in the need of extra premises/space for running the business of his daughters -in -law. It was further alleged that his daughters -in -law are running their business in their residence from last four to five years and they have sufficient space to expand their business. The need of the landlord/respondent is not bona fide and genuine and on the garb of the need of his daughters -in -law, the respondent/landlord wishes to oust the petitioners from the disputed premises. Both the parties led documentary evidence by way of affidavits along with annexures in support of their respective contentions. After hearing both the parties and perusing the record, learned Prescribed Authority, held that the need of the landlord/respondent is not bona fide and genuine as he has three other buildings in his ownership from where his daughters -in -law can easily run their business of boutique. Learned Prescribed Authority also held that the comparative hardship is in favour of the tenants/petitioners and, ultimately by judgment and order dated 02.11.2011, dismissed the release application of the landlord/respondent.
(3.) FEELING aggrieved by the order of release, the landlord/respondent filed an appeal being Rent Control Appeal No. 20 of 2011 before Additional District Judge, Nainital. Learned Addl. District Judge after hearing the parties and re -appreciating the entire evidence, vide judgment and order dated 30.11.2012, allowed the appeal and upset the findings of the learned Prescribed Authority by holding that the tenants/petitioners cannot compel the landlord/respondent to run the business of his daughters -in -law from residential accommodation.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.