Decided on June 21,2013

Special Judge/Addl District Judge Respondents


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.;

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