Decided on July 23,2013

Keshav Dutt Bhagat Appellant
Geeta Shah And Others Respondents


- (1.) In both the writ petitions controversy to be decided is same, as the disputed premises is also same, therefore, both these writ petitions are being heard together and decided by common judgment for the sake of convenience, the facts of WPMS No. 1680 of 2010 are being narrated.
(2.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for to issue a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 15.09.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Nainital in Rent Control Case No. 09 of 2007 and order dated 31.08.2010 passed by learned District Judge, Nainital in Rent Control Appeal No. 08 of 2009.
(3.) Relevant facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that respondent No. 1 Smt. Geeta Shah filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) & (b) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short 'Act No. 13 of 1972') for releasing the shop in question before the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Nainital/Prescribed Authority. It was alleged in the application that the applicant/respondent No. 1 is a widow and she has one daughter and no means of income for her livelihood. Therefore, she wants to start her own business of tailoring in the shops in dispute. A joint application has been filed to release three shops, which were in possession of opposite parties (in the application). The release application was contested by the petitioners by filing their written statements before the learned Prescribed Authority and the averments made in the application were denied. In the written statement it was pleaded that the shop in dispute has been damaged on 10.07.2007 in an accident by a truck and the petitioners tried to repair the shop but respondent No. 1 filed a suit No. 45 of 2007 for injunction, restraining the petitioners from repairing the shop in dispute on 14.09.2007. The trial court dismissed the application for temporary injunction. Aggrieved by the said order, the landlady respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before the appellate court and the learned appellate court granted temporary injunction in favour of respondent No. 1 vide order dated 19.11.2007. Against the said order, the petitioners preferred Writ Petition (WPMS No. 2339 of 2007) before this Court. This Court vide order dated 22.11.2007 passed the following interim order:- "According to the petitioner, there was a tin shed on the wooden frame. In the meantime, it is provided that the petitioner can only repair that tin shed and shall not raise pucca construction.";

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