LAXMI CHANDRA BELWAL Vs. KAMLA DEVI AND ORS.
LAWS(UTN)-2015-1-42
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (FROM: NAINITAL)
Decided on
January 21,2015
Laxmi Chandra Belwal
Appellant
VERSUS
Kamla Devi and Ors.
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
RAMESH CHANDRA KESHERWANI VS. DWARIKA PRASAD [REFERRED TO]BUDHMAL GUPTA VS. VINOD GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
PRATAP NARAIN TANDON VS. ABDUL MUKATADIR [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This is a review application, which has been filed by the petitioner/tenant along with an application for condonation of delay in filing review application (CLMA No. 679 of 2015). On the grounds urged and in the interest of justice the delay condonation application is allowed. This is a review application, which has been filed by the petitioner/tenant with the prayer that the judgment and order dated 31.12.2013, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1336 of 2012 be reviewed. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner/tenant against the order of the Prescribed Authority under section 21(1)(a) of the Act XIII of 1972, also upheld in appeal. The petitioner/tenant had lost from both the Courts below. The premises in question admittedly is used for commercial purposes.
(2.)The ground raised in review application is that a point was raised in the writ petition that the landlord's need can be satisfied if only a part of the accommodation be released in his favour, under Rule 16(1)(d) of the Rules framed under the Act XIII of 1972. According to the petitioner/review applicant, there is no specific finding of the Court on (his aspect. Admittedly, the plea of Rule 16(1)(d) was raised for the first time before the High Court.
(3.)He thereafter has placed before this Court certain judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, namely, the case of Smt. Raj Rani Mehrotra v. IInd Addl. District Judge and others, 1980 6 AllLR 46(Sum.), Ramesh Chandra Kesharwani v. Dwarika Prasad and another, 2002 48 AllLR 275(SC), and also one judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Pratap Narain Tandon v. Abdul Mukatadir, 2005 59 AllLR 12, and submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a plea though raised for the first time a writ petition must be considered, even though it has not been raised before the prescribed authority or in the Appellate Court. In the second judgment (Pratap Narain Tandon) Hon'ble Court has held that the provisions of Rule 16(1)(d) are applicable to a residential accommodation as well as commercial accommodation.
(2.)The ground raised in review application is that a point was raised in the writ petition that the landlord's need can be satisfied if only a part of the accommodation be released in his favour, under Rule 16(1)(d) of the Rules framed under the Act XIII of 1972. According to the petitioner/review applicant, there is no specific finding of the Court on (his aspect. Admittedly, the plea of Rule 16(1)(d) was raised for the first time before the High Court.
(3.)He thereafter has placed before this Court certain judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, namely, the case of Smt. Raj Rani Mehrotra v. IInd Addl. District Judge and others, 1980 6 AllLR 46(Sum.), Ramesh Chandra Kesharwani v. Dwarika Prasad and another, 2002 48 AllLR 275(SC), and also one judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Pratap Narain Tandon v. Abdul Mukatadir, 2005 59 AllLR 12, and submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a plea though raised for the first time a writ petition must be considered, even though it has not been raised before the prescribed authority or in the Appellate Court. In the second judgment (Pratap Narain Tandon) Hon'ble Court has held that the provisions of Rule 16(1)(d) are applicable to a residential accommodation as well as commercial accommodation.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.