ASHOK KUMAR BANSAL Vs. MEENU AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of present writ petition, moved under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is seeking quashing of the impugned judgment and order dated 04.02.2015 passed by learned District Judge, Dehradun in RCA No. 68 of 2014 Smt. Meenu Agarwal v. Sri. Ashok Kuman Bansal, whereby the appeal filed by respondent/landlord has been allowed and petitioner/tenant has been directed to vacate and handover the shop under his tenancy to the respondent/landlord.

(2.) Factual matrix of the case is that petitioner is tenant in property in question situated at 170 Paltan Bazar Road, Dehradun. Respondent purchased the said property through registered sale deed on 19.07.1996, and issued notice to the petitioner on 12.09.2007 to vacate the shop in question within six months. Respondent/landlady has preferred release application (annexed with map), which was registered as PA Case No. 18 of 2008, stating therein that on the ground floor of the property in question, some part shown in map, mentioned by letter EFGC is in the tenancy of the petitioner whereas adjoining remaining part of the property in question is in the possession of her husband and son, where they are running their business, having 7 ft. 9 inches width and she desires to demolish the property in question in order to construct a stair case so she may used the same for going to the first floor of the disputed property. Some part of the first floor of the disputed property will be used as store/godown as husband of the respondent and son is having a godown at first floor on Dispensary Road which is insufficient. It is also stated that stair case to approach the first floor from Moti Bazar is not feasible. By showing her family need respondent preferred the release application.

(3.) Tenant/petitioner filed his written statement and opposed the release application, though admitted the fact that respondent is the owner/landlady of the property in question, however, denied the other averments. It is stated that shop in question along with the adjoining shop were initially owned by one Sri. Sudarshan Kumar, petitioner and husband of the respondent were the tenants in the said property. Respondent purchased the said property from Sri. Sudarshan Kumar. It is the stated that respondent has no bonafide need of the property in question, as family members of the respondent are having number of commercial properties for their business. It is further stated that respondent and her family members are in habit of purchasing old tenanted properties and thereafter seek release of the same by posing fanciful desire and succeeded to get the property vacated. It is further stated that area of the shops, shown in the map, is also incorrect. Respondent and her family members possess a larger area than shown in the map and there is no need of additional stair case, however, one stair case already exists from the side of Moti Bazar to approach to the first floor and second floor. It is further stated that first floor of the building was got released by the respondent/landlady for residential purpose and respondent/landlady wants to use the same for commercial purpose, other than the purpose it was released.