Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 484 (UTT)

SUDHA v. MANOJ KUMAR

2009-09-16

PRAFULLA C.PANT

body2009
Judgment Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By means of this petition, moved under Article 226 read with 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 22.10.2007, passed by the Prescribed Authority in P.A. Case No. 3 of 2006; Manoj Kumar Vs. Mange Ram. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.1/landlord filed suit for release of the shop in question before the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haridwar. The respondent No. 2 (tenant), who was party in the proceedings, filed written statement and contested the petitioner. When the petition was listed for arguments, at that stage it appears that the petitioner who is married daughter of the deceased original tenant-Rameshwar Das, moved an application 46C for her impleadment in P.A. case. After hearing the parties, said application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority vide its impugned order dated 22.10.2007. Aggrieved by said order, the petitioner filed Rent Revision No. 01 of 2008, before the District Judge, Haridwar. Said revision was dismissed as not maintainable. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention to this Court to Section 3(a)(2) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, and argued that word ‘tenant’ which is defined in said Section includes all the heirs of a deceased-tenant over a non residential building. The Supreme Court in Jaspal Singh Vs. The Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr and others AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1880, has held that expression ‘heirs’ mentioned in Section 3(a)(2) of the aforesaid Act does not necessarily mean all the heirs and it can be construed to wider and narrower sense and it depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case before this Court the petitioner is a married daughter of the original tenant (Rameshwar Das who died before filing of Release application) and she appears to be living in Devband, Saharanpur (Uttar Pradesh). Shop in question is situated in the State of Uttarakhand. It is nowhere stated that she is running the business in the shop in question after death of her father the present tenant who is contesting the petition is son of Rameshwar Das, the original tenant. Shop in question is situated in the State of Uttarakhand. It is nowhere stated that she is running the business in the shop in question after death of her father the present tenant who is contesting the petition is son of Rameshwar Das, the original tenant. In the above circumstances, having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this Court does not find any error of law committed by the Prescribed Authority in dismissing the application of the petitioner for her impleadment as co-tenant. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed summarily. (Interim Relief Application No. 8035 of 2009 also stands dismissed).