Decided on March 22,2013

BALDEV VERMA Respondents


- (1.) This writ petition has been filed to impugn the order dated 10th September, 2012 passed by the learned District Judge, Dehradun in Rent Control Appeal No. 34 of 2004 whereby and whereunder the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 24.03.2004 was reversed allowing appeal before him.
(2.) The short fact leading to filing of the present application is as follows:- The appellant was a tenant when the release application was made under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act XIII of 1972 in respect of a shop situated at 16/38 (New No. 125/70), Chakrata Road, Dehradun (hereinafter referred to as 'suit premises'). He claims that he has been running scooter and motor-cycle repair workshop for last more than 34 years in the suit premises. The respondent after having purchased the said shop on or about 10th June, 1999, filed the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') for release of the suit premises in 2000. It was contended by the respondent who is a medical practitioner that he bona fide needed the said shop as he does not have any alternative 2 accommodation to run his medical clinic. The petitioner filed written statement to contest the said application. The petitioner stated therein that the respondent had been carrying on medical profession at and from shop No. 77 Govind Garh, Dehradun, which belongs to his father. Thus he is settled. This fact was not disclosed in his application. Hence, the respondent had not come with the clean hands. In the written statement, the petitioner also stated that there is yet another accommodation which either belongs to the father or the petitioner or the brother.
(3.) The Prescribed Authority, after considering contention and rival contention and evidence of both the sides held that the respondent failed to prove bona fide need. The Prescribed Authority also found that the applicant had alternative accommodation wherefrom he has been carrying on his medical practice. The learned Prescribed Authority considered the hardships of the respondent vis- -vis petitioner and found that the petitioner would suffer serious hardships. The Appellate Authority, however, came to his independent findings, taking note of the subsequent event, without accepting the findings of the learned Prescribed Authority.;

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