SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA,J. - (1.)Primarily, the Writ Petition arises out of the proceedings, which was held before the Court below, under Section 21 (1) (a) of Act No. 13 of 1972, which was initiated by the respondent / landlord by way of PA Case No. 4 of 2009 Lt. Colonel Girijashankar Mungali and others Vs. Janki Pandey. On initiation of the aforesaid proceedings of release in 2009, before the Court of Prescribed Authority at Nainital, the same was contested on merits by the parties to the proceedings and was ultimately decided by the judgement dated 31st May, 2013 and, as a consequence thereto, the release of the residential accommodation, as sought for, by the respondent/landlord was allowed and, consequently, the direction was issued to the opposite party therein, to the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority, i.e. the petitioner/tenant, herein, to vacate the tenement, in question, within the time period as specified in the judgement of the Prescribed Authority dated 31st May, 2013.
(2.)The said judgement of the Prescribed Authority was put to challenge by the petitioner/tenant before the Court of Additional District Judge, 2nd, Nainital, by way of Rent Control Appeal No. 15 of 2013, Janki Pandey Vs. Lt Colonel Girijashankar Mungali and others preferred under section 22 of the Act no. 13 of 1972. The said Rent Control Appeal No 15 of 2013, was also dismissed by the appellate court wide its impugned judgement dated 08.11.19; thereby affirming the release of the tenement. It is these two judgements rendered by both the Courts below concurrently in the proceedings of a release of the residential accommodation under Section 21(1)(a) of Act No. 13 of 1972, for the bona fide requirement of the landlord/respondent, herein, and that when it was concurrently allowed by both the Courts below, the present Writ Petition has been preferred by the petitioner giving challenge to the two judgements before this Court.
(3.)The Writ Petition was filed by the tenant /petitioner before the Registry on 17th February, 2020. When the matter was taken up for argument at admission stage on 18th February, 2020, an adjournment was sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the writ petition was directed to be posted on 19th February, 2020 for hearing on admission. On the proceedings held further on 19th February, 2020, after hearing the counsel for the petitioner at length, since both the Courts below have concurrently considered the aspect of the bona fide requirement of the landlord for release of the tenement i.e the residential accommodation, wherein, the applicant No I and II, who were the retired ex-army personnel wanted the release of the disputed tenement to accommodate their family, and since the same was concurrently allowed by both the Courts below, and as such, after a prolonged hearing, the counsel for the petitioner had, consequently confined his prayer, limited to the extent that he may be permitted to vacate the tenement, in question, within the period of three years from the date of the order i.e dated 19th February, 2020. But, since at the time when the writ petition was argued on 19th February, 2020, at admission stage, and the petitioner had prayed for time to vacate the premises, it could not have been granted unilaterally without hearing the landlord/respondents, hence, pre-cautionarily the Court directed the petitioner to serve the respondent/landlord 'dasti' and fixed 26th February, 2020, for their appearance in order to solicit their opinion with regard to the time sought for by the petitioner to vacate the premises. The appearance of the landlord/respondent was sought for the limited purpose, to fix the time for the petitioner to vacate the premises.