Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 311 (UTT)

Commander Alok Sah v. District Judge, Nainital

2014-08-21

ALOK SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Alok Singh, J. 1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing restoration application is condoned. CLMA No. 7911 of 2014 stands disposed of. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, restoration application No. 509 of 2014 is allowed. Order dated 30.04.2014 dismissing the writ petition for non prosecution is recalled. Writ petition is restored to its original number. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since she has purchased the property from the owner of the disputed building, therefore, she may be impleaded as one of the petitioner, keeping in mind, the principle of Order 22 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. 4. For the reasons stated in the impleadment application No. 7912 of 2014, same is allowed. Let necessary amendment in the memo of parties be incorporated during the course of the day. 5. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, present petition is taken up for final hearing and is being disposed of by this judgment today itself. 6. Present petition is filed by the landlord assailing the judgment and order dated 13.07.2005, passed by R.C. & E.O., Nainital as well as judgment and order dated 19.07.2005, passed by learned District Judge, Nainital. 7. Undisputedly, landlord has also moved an application under Section 16 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 for release of the accommodation. Learned R.C. & E.O. vide impugned order dated 13.07.2005 was pleased to reject the application of the petitioner landlord under Section 16 of the Act for release of the premise and was further pleased to allot the same by the same order in favour of respondent No.3. There is no dispute to the fact that R.C. & E.O. has to decide the release application first and if release application is rejected, then only he can proceed with the allotment application. He cannot decide both the applications by one and composite order. Therefore, order impugned does not sustain in the eyes of law. Consequently, writ petition is allowed. Both the impugned orders are quashed. Matter is remanded to the learned R.C. & E.O. Learned R.C. & E.O. shall decide the application of the release first after hearing the counsel for the landlord only.