SARFARAZ HUSSAIN Vs. CHANDU CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Siddhartha Sah, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Arvind Vashistha, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kaushal Pandey, the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) In this writ petition, the petitioners being the owner of the tenanted premises has prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dtd. 12/3/2014 passed by Prescribed Authority/ Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Almora in Rent Case No. 03 of 2010 and confirming judgment and order dtd. 30/5/2015 passed by the learned District Judge, Almora in Rent Appeal no.6 of 2014. He has also prayed for appropriate suitable directions and mesne profit to the petitioner by the sole respondent @ Rs.10,000.00 per month.

(3.) The petitioners inherited the property from their father. Respondent no. 1 is the tenant with respect of the said property or shop. Petitioner no. 1 was in service in Central Warehousing Corporation and he retired in the year 2003. He is not receiving any pension, therefore he decided to setup the shop and carry small business in the shop in question which was in the tenancy of respondent no. 1. In other words, he claimed that he required the same for his bona fide personal use, and, therefore, he filed an application for release of the tenanted premises before the learned Prescribed Authority. The opposite party in this case has claimed that the petitioner has other properties and one of his properties was tenanted to some other person, namely, Shambhu Dutt Joshi but the petitioner got it released through process of the Court for the purpose of his own use. However, the said property was again tenanted to some other person. This fact was not pleaded by the petitioner in his release petition and it came to the Court after filing of the counter affidavit or the written submissions by the sole respondent. This fact is, in fact, disputed by the petitioners during course of hearing, and a commission was deputed. The Commission ascertained the fact and reported in favour of the plea taken by the respondent which shows that the petitioners did not come to the Court i.e. Court of the learned Prescribed Authority with clean hands, in fact, he has suppressed material facts before the Court.