MUKESH KUMAR SHARMA; SIMRA ENTERPRISES & OTHER Vs. KOMAL ARORA AND OTHERS
LAWS(UTN)-2013-9-84
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on September 30,2013

Mukesh Kumar Sharma; Simra Enterprises And Other Appellant
VERSUS
Komal Arora And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Since, the controversy involved in both these petitions is similar, therefore, for the sake of convenience these petitions are being decided by this common judgment.
(2.) By means of these two petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2003, passed by learned Additional District Judge/1st Fast Tract Court, Haridwar in revision No. 32 of 2000, in Writ Petition No. 145 of 2004, and also judgment and decree dated 17.12.20003, passed by learned Additional District Judge/1st Fast Tract Court, Haridwar in revision No. 19 of 2000, in Writ Petition No. 158 of 2004, whereby said court has allowed the revisions and the suits for ejectment of the petitioners with cost.
(3.) Briefly sated facts of the case giving rise to these two petitions are that according to the petitioner the husband of the respondent No.1 and father of the respondents No. 2 and 3 Ravindra Kumar Arora alongwith his brother Pradeep Kumar Arora filed a S.C.C. Suit No. 17 of 1993, which was filed against Mukesh Kumar Sharma and another S.C.C. Suit No. 18 of 1993, which was filed against M/s Simra Enterprises for ejectment of the petitioners from the premises in question. The said suits have been filed on the ground that since the shops in question are newly constructed, as such, provision of the UP Act No.13 of 1972 is not applicable. The tenancy of the petitioners was terminated by serving a notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In the both the cases, there is no dispute regarding rent as well as the suit was not filed on the ground of default. Both the suits have been contested by the filing the written statements before the learned Judge, S.C.C. It was specifically stated in the plaint that the shops in question are not newly constructed. It is stated in the written statements filed in both the writ petitions is that the shops have been constructed when first assessment was made in the year 1983 and the suit was filed after the completion of ten years of the first assessment for the purpose of tax.;


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