Decided on January 18,2013

Sh Deepak Oberoi Appellant
Sh Virendra Sehgal Respondents


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 need.
(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 the appeal.;

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