SH DEEPAK OBEROI Vs. SH VIRENDRA SEHGAL
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Sh Deepak Oberoi
Sh Virendra Sehgal
Click here to view full judgement.
B.S.VERMA, J. -
(1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ
in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 01 -8 -2009
passed by the Additional District Judge/F.T.C. -V, Dehradun in Rent
Control Appeal No. 144 of 2008, Sh. Vidrendra Sehgal Vs. Sh. Deepak
Oberoi, whereby the learned appellate Court while deciding the
application moved by the application moved by the appellant -tenant under
Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. (paper no. 6 -C) has been allowed on payment of
Rs. 500/ - as costs.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition, are that the respondent -landlord moved a release
application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P.Urban Buildings (Regulation
of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the Act) against the
tenant for release of the shop in dispute on the ground of his bona fide
(3.) THE release application was contested before the Prescribed Authority, who after perusing the evidence of the parties, did not find
favour with the applicant -landlord and dismissed the release application
by judgment and order dated 27 -8 -2008. Aggrieved, the landlord preferred
an appeal under Section 22 of the Act before the District Judge,
Dehradun, which was subsequently transferred to the court of the
Additional District Judge/ F.T.C. V, Dehradun for disposal.
It appears that the appellant has moved an application under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. for taking additional evidence on record. The
petitionr has annexed the said application as Annexure -7 to the writ
petition. In this application it has been alleged by the
applicant -appellant that the learned lower Court in the impugned judgment
has denied the need of the appellant because the appellant is having othr
property bearing No. 547, Kaulagarh Road, Dehradun and a shop adjacent to
the shop in question. It has been asserted by the appellant that his
father had dissolved all his relations with appellant as the appellant
had married against the wishes of his father. The appellant in order to
prove that the said property belongs to his father has filed the present
application to bring on record the sale deed of the property bear No.
547, Kaulagarh Road and the shop adjacent to the sjhop in question. Since the bona fide need of the appellant was rejected on account of the
ownership of the said property, the certified copies of the sale deed and
photographs of the shop in question are relevant for the just decision of
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.