SURAJ SINGH MEHRA Vs. MEHMOOD AHMAD AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 20.05.2010, passed by the Prescribed Authority, in P.A. case No. 7 of 2007, Mahmood Ahmad Vs. Smt. Chandra Kala Mehra and others, and judgment and order dated 03.08.2013 passed by Additional District Judge, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal, in Rent Control Appeal No. 19 of 2010, Harish Mehra and others Vs. Mahmood Ahmad.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this writ are that landlord/respondent no. 1, purchased the premises in question in the year 2001 and later in the year 2007, respondent preferred an application under Sec. 21(1) (A) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972, which was moved before the Prescribed Authority by the respondent, for release of property in question in his favour showing his bona fide need. The relationship of landlord and tenant is not disputed. Late Sri Dhan Singh Mehra (father of the petitioner), was tenant in the premises in question and after the death of the father of the petitioner, the mother of the petitioner and the present petitioner along with proforma respondents No. 2 and 3, became the tenant.

(3.) It is further stated in the writ petition that presently only the petitioner along with his family i.e. his wife and three minor children is residing in the said tenanted residential accommodation. Respondent no. 1-Mahmood Ahmad is living in a house no. 199/79, Vakeel Mohalla, Sadar Bazar, Lansedowne, on rent. Therefore, application was moved for release of the ground floor of the premises in question, which is in possession of the tenant. Said application was contested by filing written statement, before the Prescribed Authority, wherein it was alleged that his family is residing at Nagina at his parental house. It is alleged in the written statement that the landlord/respondent no. 1 is not in the need of the accommodation and has moved the application only to enhance the rent and evict the petitioner. It is further alleged that comparative hardship and bona fide need is in favour of the petitioner.