PRATAP SINGH Vs. SPECIAL JUDGE/ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Special Judge/Addl District Judge
Click here to view full judgement.
HONBLE B.S.VERMA, J. -
(1.) HEARD Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.
Pankaj Tangwan, Brief Holder for respondent no.1 and Mr. Navneet Kaushik,
learned counsel for respondent no.2.
(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order
dated 4.5.1998 passed by Special Judge/Addl. District Judge, whereby the
said court has allowed the appeal of the landlord/respondent.
(3.) BRIEFLY stated facts of the case, giving rise to this writ petition are, that petitioners are tenants of the shop situate at
Sahukara Line, Haldwani, District Nainital. Landlord/respondent no.2 Smt.
Sita Devi and Smt. Draupadi Devi filed an application under Section 20 of
the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (for short, the Act) praying for eviction of
tenant/petition from the shop situate on the ground floor, details of
which has been given in the application. In the application, the
applicants/respondents have taken different grounds that the
tenant/petitioner Pratap Singh has taken a shop on rent in Naveen Mandi
at Bareilly Road, Haldwani and is carrying on business of Arhat of
potatoes and apples therein. The opposite party no.1/petitioner has also
let out the disputed shop to Pushkar Singh who has started manufacturing
sweet, namkeen etc. in the shop. It is further alleged by the landlord
that the opposite parties have made material alterations in the building
which has diminished its value and utility and have wilfully caused
substantial damage to the building in dispute. It is further stated that
the building is bonafidely required by the applicants. The building is in
dilapidated condition and is required for the purposes of demolition and
new construction. It is also alleged that the opposite parties are also
chronic defaulter in payment of rent. It is also pleaded that by
demolition of said building new construction would be made according to
the bye -laws of the local authorities.
The application was resisted by the petitioners/tenants by filing objections/written statement alleging that there is no bonafide
need of the landlord/respondent no.2.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.