Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 13 (UTT)

RAMESH CHANDRA BHANDARI v. RAM SINGH SALAL

2011-01-04

B.S.VERMA

body2011
JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 24.08.2009, passed by learned District Judge, Almora in Rent Control Appeal No. 03 of 2009 and to upheld the judgment and order dated 08.05.2009, passed by learned Prescribed Authority Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Almora, in Rent Control Case No. 02 of 2006, whereby the shop in question was released in favour of the petitioner. 3. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the petition are that petitioner filed an application under Section 21(p)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, for release of the shop in question before Prescribed Authority on the ground that the shop is bonafidely required to settle his son. The respondent had contested the application. After hearing both the parties, the shop in question was released in favour of the petitioners by the Prescribed Authority Aggrieved by the order of Prescribed Authority, respondent preferred Rent Control Appeal No. 3 of 2009, before the District Judge, Almora, whereby the matter was remanded back to the Prescribed Authority on the ground that the bonafide need and comparative hardship of son and daughter-in-law was not pleaded before the Prescribed Authority, and an opportunity was given to amend the pleadings and adduce the evidence. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the findings of the learned District Judge is perverse and against the record of file. He further stated that in para 4 (O) of the petition, it has been mentioned that learned District Judge, Almora, has misread the pleadings of the parties. Copy of the pleadings of the parties has been annexed as annexure no. 2 to the writ petition. In para 4 of the writ petition it has been stated that need of the daughter-in-law Smt. Nirmala was pleaded. Thus the findings given by learned District Judge, Almora, are perverse and based on misreading of the pleadings. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner stated at bar that the petitioner had already pleaded the bonafide need of son and daughter-in-law, therefore, the impugned order, passed by District Judge, Almora, on this sole ground is totally non speaking and not sustainable in the eyes of law. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner stated at bar that the petitioner had already pleaded the bonafide need of son and daughter-in-law, therefore, the impugned order, passed by District Judge, Almora, on this sole ground is totally non speaking and not sustainable in the eyes of law. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties the petition deserves to be allowed. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.08.2009, passed by District Judge, Almora, in Rent Control Appeal No. 03 of 2009, is set aside. District Judge, Almora is directed to decide the appeal of the respondent on merit after hearing both the parties, as expeditiously as possible.