ANIL KUMAR VERMA Vs. KAMLA BOBAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners before this Court, in the present writ petition, are the tenants of a shop, which is situated at the ground floor of the building, bearing Municipal No. 8, situated at Dhamawala Bazar, District Dehradun. The said market has been later on re-christened as to be 'Saraffa Bazar'. The respondents/landlords on 2/6/2005, had instituted the proceedings for the release of the shop in question (hereinafter to be called as to be "tenement"), on the ground, that initially, the tendency was created in favour of one late Mr. Shyam Lal as back as about 80 to 85 years ago; he had later on met with the sad demise on 6/2/1969, and he was succeeded by his two sons Mr. Panna Lal and Mr. Moti Lal.

(2.) The wife of the principal tenant late Mr. Shyam Lal, namely Smt. Kalawati was already predeceased. As a consequence thereto, the tenancy devolved upon Mr. Moti Lal, who too, is said to have met with the sad demise in September 2000. He was succeeded by his wife Anguri Devi, who was the Opposite Party No. 1, to the Release Application; Naresh Kumar Opposite Party No. 3; Rajesh Kumar Opposite Party No. 4. Another son Mr. Narendra Kumar, since had met with the sad demise, later on, his wife married with Mr. Anil Kumar Verma, who was impleaded as Opposite Party No. 5, in the Release Application. Mr. Anil Kumar was blessed with the son Rahul, who had been impleaded as Opposite Party No. 6, to the Release Application. Apart from the above successors of late Mr. Moti Lal, though it would not be relevant, but since the references have been made in the pleadings, the Court feels it to deal with those issues too, they are that late Mr. Moti Lal was also succeeded by the daughter Neelam, Meena, Beena and Anju, who, according to the pleadings of the petitioners before the Court below, as well as, that of the respondents/landlords were already married daughters, who were at the relevant point of time were living with their respective in-laws.

(3.) The opposite parties to the proceedings and as per the pleadings, raised in the release application, it is not in dispute, that Opposite Party No. 3 Mr. Naresh Kumar, was one of the successors of the principal tenant late Mr. Moti Lal, he was already engaged in an independent business. Similarly, Opposite Party No. 4, Rajesh Kumar, admittedly, was having a separate business in Haridwar. So far as the Opposite Party No. 2, is concerned, i.e. Mr. Panna Lal, who was impleaded as a party respondent in the release application, who was the son of late Mr. Shyam Lal and uncle of late Mr. Moti Lal, he too had an independent business and had a separate watch repairing shop in Dehradun.