DINESH MAHEWARI,J. - (1.) WITH the consent and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties, these two intra -court appeals against the same interim order dated 16.12.2013, as passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No.2997/2013, have been considered together; and are taken up for disposal at this stage itself by this common judgment.
(2.) THE short point involved in these appeals arises out of the grievance of both the parties, who are respectively the tenant, Shri Ramesh Kumar (Appellant of SAW No.81/2014); and the landlord, Shri Mahaveer Prasad (Appellant of SAW No.132/2014), against the interim directions given by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the impugned order dated 16.12.2013. The aforesaid order dated 16.12.2013 has been passed in the writ petition filed by the tenant -Ramesh Kumar against the judgment dated 16.02.2013 as passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Srigaganagar in Rent Appeal No.6/2011 whereby, the Appellate Rent Tribunal affirmed the judgment and certificate for recovery of possession dated 28.05.2011, as issued by the Rent Tribunal, Sriganganagar in Rent Case No.98/2005 whereby, the petitioner - tenant was ordered to be evicted from the demised premises, said to be the shop situated at Railway Station Road, Gol Bazar, Srigaganagar, essentially on the ground of reasonable and bonafide requirement of the plaintiff -landlord.
(3.) IT appears that there had been the issues involved in the matter as regards the status of the demised premises as also the status of the parties qua the same inasmuch as it had been the case before the Court that the plaintiff Mahaveer Prasad was having title over one -half portion of the shop in question, to the extent of 8'x11'; and Ashok Kumar, cousin of Mahaveer Prasad, was having ownership over the other 8'x11' portion. The said Ashok Kumar is said to have executed a gift deed in favour of the plaintiff Mahaveer Prasad. The questions have been posed in the writ petition as regards the right and entitlement of the plaintiff Mahaveer Prasad to seek eviction on the ground of his personal requirement, particularly with reference to the fact that he was not having direct ownership over 8'x11' portion of the shop, which he allegedly acquired through a gift deed during the pendency of the petition for eviction.;