HEM CHANDRA JOSHI Vs. VIDYA BHUSHAN GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner of the present Writ Petition claims himself to be the purchaser of the property, by virtue of a registered sale deed dtd. 5/2/2000, which was claimed to have been executed in his favour by the predecessor/owner of the property, i.e. respondent No.9. It is on the strength of the said sale deed dtd. 5/2/2000, that the petitioner contends that he would be entitled to give a challenge to the impugned orders, i.e. 15/4/2009, as was passed by the District Judge, Almora, in Civil Revision No. 4 of 2007, Vinita Gupta and others Vs. Harish Chandra Agarwal and others, which was preferred under Sec. 18 of the Act No. 13 of 1972, against the order dtd. 12/2/2001 passed by the competent Authority, under Sec. 16 (1) (b) of Act No. 13 of 1972.

(2.) The chequered history of the proceedings itself, in fact, shows that the landlord/respondent No.9, as he principally and initially was, had filed an application under Sec. 12 of the Act No. 13 of 1972, for the purposes of declaration of vacancy of the tenement, in question, which was claimed by landlord respondent No.9, to have fallen vacant, from the occupancy of the respondent Nos.1 to 8, who are said to be the tenants in occupation of the tenement, which was sought to be declared vacant by invoking the provisions contained under Sec. 12 of the Act of 1972.

(3.) On this application, as was submitted by respondent No.9 landlord, on 29/9/1999, a report was called for by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, which was submitted by the said Authority on 27/11/1999, and consequent to the report thus submitted on 27/11/1999, a publication for declaration of vacancy was made on 22/12/1999, and ultimately, upon consideration of an objection, the vacancy was declared by an order dtd. 25/2/2000, and the tenement was declared to be vacant.