MADHO LAL JAIN Vs. DHARMENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for both the parties have agreed that this writ petition may be disposed of finally at the admission stage without inviting counter affidavit from the respondent.

(2.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 28th January 2008 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kotdwar in P.A. Case No. 3 of 2006, Dharmendra Kumar Vs. Shri Madho Lal Jain and another (Annexure No. 1 to the petition) and the judgment and order dated 26.11.2009 passed by the District Judge Pauri Garhwal in Rent Control Appeal No. 7 of 2008, Madho Lal Jain and another Vs. Dharmendra Kumar (Annexure -11 to the petition). By the order dated 28.1.2008 the Prescribed Authority has allowed the release application moved by the landlord -respondent under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the Act) and directed the tenants -petitioners to vacate the disputed accommodation as well as commercial shop within a period of four months and to deliver its vacant possession to the landlord. By the order dated 26.11.2009, the appellate court has dismissed the appeal of the petitioners and upheld the judgment passed by the Prescribed Authority but has directed the landlord to pay two years rent as compensation to the petitioners -tenants.

(3.) RELEVANT facts giving rise to the present writ petition in brief are that the landlord -respondent moved an application for release of the disputed accommodation/shop under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act alleging therein that he is a landlord of the building situated at Badrinath Road, Kotdwar. On the ground floor, there is shop and Verandah opening towards the road and on the first floor thereof, there is one room, Verandah, Kitchen and bath -room and on the second floor there is a latrine. The petitioners are tenants of the said building on monthly rent @ Rs. 225/ -. The petitioners are running a cloth merchant shop on the ground floor while the rest portion is being used for residential purposes by them. The landlord has three married sons - Shailendra aged about 44 years, Satendra aged about 42 years and Vivek aged about 38 years and all the three sons are having children. Besides, the applicant -landlord has three daughters and all of them are married. Out of the three sons, Satendra Kumar is in government service, while the other two sons are educated. It is also alleged that Shailendra Kumar is unemployed, while the other son Vivek was unemployed for many years. According to the landlord, he himself has also retired from service and after retirement, he requires the disputed shop for his own business as well as for the business of his two sons. It is also alleged that earlier an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was moved bearing Rent Case No. 24 of 1991, which was dismissed and an appeal was preferred, which too was dismissed. The landlord preferred a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court which was registered as Writ Petition No. 39072 of 1998, which was also dismissed on 20.11.1998 but liberty was given to the landlord to move release application afresh. As per observations made by the Allahabad High Court, the landlord filed release application (Rent Case No. 19 of 1998) against which preliminary objections were filed by the petitioners on the ground that the application for release was not maintainable within a period of one year of the decision of the writ petition. However, the respondent -landlord has withdrawn the release application with permission of the court on 9.8.2002 with liberty to file a fresh application.