VIDYA NEGI Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE, PAURI GARHWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari setting aside the judgment and orders dated 3.5.2005, 20.4.2005 and 26.9.2004 (Annexure Nos. 22, 20 and 12 of the writ petition).

(2.) RELEVANT facts of the case are that the respondent no.3 Vachaspati Kotnala purchased property no. 199/10 situate at Subedaar Mohalla Lansdowne from one Mr. Bisht in the year 1990 and thus, respondent no. 3 is the landlord and the petitioners and the tenants in the II Floor accommodation since the time of their predecessor. The respondent No.3 -landlord moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the Act) for release of the accommodation in his favour, which is in occupation of the tenant -petitioners on the ground of his bona fide need. Initially Sri Jaikrit Singh Negi (since deceased) and Smt. Yashoda Negi were the tenants of the disputed accommodation at the monthly rental of Rs. 50.00 each, total Rs. 100.00. The boundaries of the tenanted portion has been given at the foot of the release application. The house was purchased by the landlord for his own need. It is alleged that the tenants gave assurance that they are constructing their house at Kotdwar and they will vacate the accommodation when their house is got constructed. However, the tenant Yashoda Negi left for Kotdwar but she locked the accommodation and did not handover possession to the landlord. It is alleged that the applicant -respondent no. 3 has genuinely pressing and bona fide need for the accommodation. It is alleged that the O.P.No. 2 is demanding a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - as Pagri from the applicant. On the assurance of the tenants to vacate the premises, no proceedings were drawn against them earlier. The land lord send notice to the tenants on 12.2.1999, but the opposite party No.1 wrongly replied the same, while the O.P.No. 2 refused to accept the notice. The tenants never made any effort to search for alternative accommodation. The accommodation in occupation of the landlord is in the ground floor and due to moisture it is not fit for residential purpose.

(3.) THE O.P.No.1 Jaikrit Singh contested the applicant by filed his objection/reply. He admitted the tenancy but stated that Jaikrit Singh and Yashoda Negi are not separate tenants. It was stated that Jaikrit Singh and the husband of O.P.No. 2 Yashoda Negi were real brothers of Joint Hindu Family and they were continuing in the tenancy as such for the last 60 -70 years from the time of their father. After the death of their father in the year 1987, the O.P.No.1, his deceased brother Yogendra Singh and Satish Singh were the tenants at monthly rental of Rs. 100/ -. Subsequently, Yogendra Singh Negi died. As per agreement between the parties, it was agreed that the opposite parties will remain as tenants in the second story from 1.10.1995 @ Rs. 100/ - per month as rent. O.P.No. 2 Yashoda Negi left Lansdowne for Kotdwar. Now the Opposite party No. 1 continues to be tenant of Second Floor. According to the opposite party, the landlord has no genuine and bona fide need and he has sufficient accommodation. O.P.No.1 raised a plea that he is serving in the defence canteen at Lansdowne after his retirement from the army. It was also pleaded that if the application of landlord is allowed, the tenant shall suffer irreparable loss. The landlord just wants to give the accommodation at higher rent.