JAGDISH NARAIN MEHRA Vs. RANJAY PRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 22.12.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, I F.T.C. Nainital in Rent Control Appeal No. 12 of 2006 Jagdish Narain Mehra v. Sri Ranjay Pratap and the order dated 22.8.2006 passed by Prescribed Authority/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital, in Rent Control Case No. 11 of 2003, Ranjay Pratap v. Jagdish Narain Mehra. By the order dated 22.8.2006, the learned Prescribed Authority had allowed the application of the landlord for release moved under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the Act) and directed the petitioner tenant to vacate the disputed property within a period of thirty days. By the order dated 22.12.2009, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.

(2.) Relevant facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, are that the respondent-landlord moved an application under section 21(1)(a) of the Act before the Prescribed Authority for release of the disputed premises the boundaries of which have been detailed at the foot of the application. The application was registered as Rent Control Case No. 11 of 2003. It has been alleged therein that the landlord purchased the property known as Grainvill Shop, Mall Road, Tallital, Nainital through registered sale-deed dated 15.9.1993 from its previous owner and landlord Madan Lal Sah. The portion which the landlord had purchased has been shown and delineated within the words A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-A in the map attached to the sale-deed. The petitioner is a month-to-month tenant in the ground floor and is running a restaurant and a hotel in the name and style of Merino Hotel and Restaurant. The tenant has also opened the office of travel agency in the Verandah. The upper storey of the said portion is in the tenancy of one Mohan Lal Sah. The said property was purchased by the landlord for his personal need to settle him in the business. The applicant served a notice dated 10.2.2003 upon the petitioner asking him to vacate the premises in question and to deliver its possession to the landlord, granting six months' time to vacate but the petitioner did not comply with the notice. The application for release has been moved to start a business in the disputed premises as the landlord has become overage for Government jobs. It is alleged that the applicant is married person having four members in his family comprising himself, his wife, one son Master Shaurya Pratap and one daughter Tanisha Pratap. The opposite party is a rich person having several businesses in Nainital and Bareilly and he also owns one passenger bus, two Qualis, Vans and they are being run on rent.

(3.) Both the parties led documentary evidence as well as oral evidence in the shape of affidavits before the Prescribed Authority.