DR. NARDEV SHARMA Vs. RAVINDRA KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of The Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order dtd. 3/4/2019 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Vikas Nagar, Dehradun in P.A. Case No.03 of 2017 Ravindra Kumar Jain vs. Dr. Nardev Sharma.

(2.) Facts leading to filing of present writ petition are that respondent/landlord filed an application under Sec. 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short, Act No.13 of 1972) for release of premises in question on the ground of bonafide need. Petitioner/tenant contested the said application and filed his written statement. In the written statement, the petitioner/tenant denied the averments made in the release application. He also stated that the respondent/landlord is owner of many properties situated in the same vicinity and other commercial localities, out of which, some are lying vacant. Respondent/landlord filed his affidavit denying the averments made in the written statement. Petitioner/tenant moved an application paper no.49A under Sec. 34(d) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 read with Rule 22(f), stating that the respondent/landlord has seven shops on the main road of Herbatpur Vikasnagar Highway in vacant state, a non-commercial complex near the premises in question, etc., and prayed that the landlord be directed to submit the document/details of properties, mentioned in the application, before the court. Prescribed Authority, vide order dtd. 11/10/2018, allowed the application paper no.49A and directed the respondent/landlord to file an affidavit giving details in regard to the properties in possession of landlord. In pursuance of order dtd. 11/10/2018, respondent/landlord filed his affidavit. Subsequently, petitioner/tenant filed an application u/s 34 (c) and (g) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 read with Rule 22f U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 to appoint Advocate Commissioner/Civil Court Amin. Against the said application, respondent/landlord filed his objections. After hearing the counsel for the parties and on perusal of papers, Prescribed Authority, vide order dtd. 3/4/2019, dismissed the said application. While doing so, the Prescribed Authority observed that the respondent/landlord, in compliance of order dtd. 11/10/2018, has filed an affidavit dtd. 25/10/2018 giving details of his property. Petitioner/tenant has now filed the application dtd. 28/2/2019 after the case has been fixed for arguments and it appears that the same has been filed to delay the hearing of the case. Trial court further observed that if the petitioner/tenant wants to bring true facts before the court, he may collect evidence from Nagar Palika and Revenue department and may file the same in the court.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/tenant would submit that the findings recorded by the court below while rejecting the application dtd. 28/2/2019 are perverse, and are liable to be set aside. He would further submit that details of eight properties were given by the petitioner/tenant in the earlier application which was allowed by the court below but the respondent/landlord filed a vague affidavit before the court. It is contended that the respondent/landlord has not complied with the order dtd. 11/10/2018 in its true letter and spirit. To buttress his submissions, learned Senior Counsel would place reliance on a decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Harish Chandra Jauhari v. Sunil Bajpai and another, 2008 (3) ARC 171 and would invite attention of this Court to paras 6, 7 and 8, which are extracted hereunder: