KAILASH SUYAL Vs. BOBY RAY

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 29.06.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge/III Fast Track Court, Nainital in Rent Control Appeal No. 8 of 2011, Kailash Suyal Vs. Boby Ray as well as judgment and order dated 05.07.2011 passed by Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division) Nainital, in Rent Control Case No. 7 of 2005, Boby Ray Vs. Kailash Suyal.

(2.) Facts, in brief, are that respondent filed release application under section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred as the Act 1972) for release of property in dispute/house along with land appurtenant thereto stating therein that applicant /respondent is the landlord-owner of the house, known as Apple Grove Cottage with land appurtenant thereto (hereinafter referred as property in dispute), being one of the parts of Dugai Estate, Bhowali, Tehsil and District Nainital. In January 1975, the house was let out to the father of the petitioner, namely, Late Dhani Ram Suyal. As there was no electricity connection in the house, Late Dhani Ram Suyal requested the landlord through his handwritten letter dated 16.08.1985 to permit him to install electricity connection in the property in dispute. Permission was granted by the landlord to Late Dhani Ram Suyal. Late Dhani Ram Suyal was living with the petitioner, however, his other sons build their independent houses in the same municipality area of Bhowali and were staying there separately. After death of Dhani Ram Suyal, rent was paid by the petitioner to the respondent/landlord. Being old aged person, landlord requested the tenant/petitioner to vacate the property in dispute and deliver the possession to the landlord, as he is having bonafide need of the property in dispute. It is stated that due to old age and ill health, the respondent/landlord is unable to use his existing house, and the property in dispute, which is adjacent to right side of road, is more suitable for the landlord and his family members.

(3.) The petitioner/ tenant filed his written statement denying the ownership of the respondent/landlord and contend that just to grab the property in dispute dishonestly, release application has been filed. It is further stated that father of the petitioner was himself owner of the property in dispute and there was no question of letting out the property in dispute. It is further contended that the electricity connection in the property in dispute is in the name of the petitioner and there was no occasion to seek permission from the respondent. It is further contended that he along with his brothers, namely, Sri Nandan Suyal, and Sri Anand Suyal were residing with his father i.e. Late Dhani Ram Suyal in the property in dispute at the time of death of his father. It is further contended that applicant has no right , title or interest on Khasra No. 674-A, measuring 6 Muthi, Khasra No. 675-A, measuring 9 Muthi; Khasra No. 676-A, measuring 11 Muthi and 677-A, measuring 1 Nali 1 Muthi of Khata No. 115 and Khasra No. 674-Ba, measuring 6 muthi, Khasra no. 675-Ba measuring 9 Muthi; Khasra No. 676-Ba measuring 12 Muthi and 677-Ba measuring 1 Nali of Khata No. 118 of Village Kahalkweera Pargana Chakhata, Tehsil and District Nainital are in exclusive ownership and possession of the petitioner along with the building in dispute and a cowshed, constructed on Khasra No. 677 from the time of his father Late Sri Dhani Ram Suyal. Petitioner has denied the fact that property in dispute is situated in the compound of the applicant's residence. It is further stated that land of aforesaid khata no. 115 and 118, including the property in dispute constructed on Khasra No. 677 thereof, is a separate, compact and consolidated area bounded by the public road and bridle road in the south-east, east and east-north and by the ravine (gadhera) in the north-west, west and south-west and the said land with the property in dispute and cowshed constructed thereon are in exclusive possession of the petitioner from the time of his father. It is further stated that aforementioned Khasra numbers of village Kahalkweera, ParganaChakhata, Tehsil and District Nainital were in the exclusive ownership and possession of Col. Mathura Lal Sah and he had his house constructed on aforesaid Khasra No. 677 and as Col. Mathura Lal Sah was in Indian Army, when his children grown up, his family left the aforesaid property and the building constructed on aforesaid Khasra no. 677 became dilapidated and father of the petitioner Late Dhani Ram Suyal obtained the aforesaid property from Col. Mathura Lal Sah for his occupation. It is further stated that after occupying said property in the year 1972, father of the petitioner constructed the present building on Khasra No. 677 in place of the old ruined building and the cow shed and his father was the exclusive and sole owner of the aforesaid property including the property in dispute.