Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 94 (UTT)

PUTTAN LAL v. RAM PRAKASH

2014-03-20

ALOK SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J (Oral). Present petition is filed assailing the judgment and order dated 30.08.2001 passed by District Judge, Almora in Rent Control Appeal No. 7 of 1998 as well as against the judgment and order dated 27.08.1998 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Junior Division), Almora in Rent Control Case No. 1 of 1994 whereby application moved by the landlord/ petitioner, herein, for release of the building was rejected. 2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that initially a release application was moved by the landlord/petitioner under Section 21 (1) (a) and (b) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 saying that petitioner has purchased the entire building from the then owner/landlord Sri Devi Lal Sah on 19.12.1992. It was further asserted that entire building is more than 90 years old and is in dilapidated condition, therefore, building is unsafe and is liable to be demolished at once and after demolition, landlord/ petitioner, herein, shall carry out new construction and thereafter, shall use the building for his personal purposes. 3. During the pendency of the release application before Prescribed Authority, a statement was made to the effect that application moved by the landlord/petitioner under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 should not be considered and release application should be heard only on the ground of demolition and requirement of new construction, as provided under Section 21 (1) (b) of the Act. However, the Prescribed Authority did not find favour with the landlord/petitioner and was pleased to dismiss the application moved by the landlord/petitioner. 4. Feeling aggrieved, landlord/petitioner preferred an Appeal under Section 22 of the Act before District Judge, Almora, however, District Judge, Almora did not find any fault with the judgment rendered by the Prescribed Authority and ultimately, dismissed the appeal filed by the landlord/ petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, landlord/petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing present petition. 5. As observed by both the courts below, building was 90 years old, on the date of institution of the application under Section 21 of the Act, in the year 1994. Undisputedly, Junior Engineer of the Municipal Board, Almora visited the spot and found that build is three-storied from the side of Chowk and five-storied from Tehsil – Nagar Palika Road. As observed by both the courts below, building was 90 years old, on the date of institution of the application under Section 21 of the Act, in the year 1994. Undisputedly, Junior Engineer of the Municipal Board, Almora visited the spot and found that build is three-storied from the side of Chowk and five-storied from Tehsil – Nagar Palika Road. He further opined that entire building, except these two shops, which are on the ground floor on the Bazar and Tehsil - Nagar Palika Road side, was vacant and was in dilapidated condition and the building should be demolished at once, otherwise, it may be dangerous for the safety of neighbours and passers-by. 6. On the other hand, on the request of tenants, Mr. P.C. Joshi, retired Assistant Engineer, PWD also visited the building and opined that though building is century old but can be retained by doing some repair work. 7. Undisputedly, building is century old and is situated in a crowded area of Almora. Undisputedly, except these two shops, which are in possession of the respondents, herein, entire building is vacant and nobody is occupying it. Undisputedly, landlord/petitioner has given an undertaking, in writing, before the Appellate Authority that after eviction of the tenants, landlord/petitioner shall reconstruct the entire building and shall let out two shops to the tenants after reconstruction. 8. In the opinion of this Court, undertaking, so furnished by the landlord/ petitioner, demonstrates his bona fide intention. Since building is century old, therefore, for the safety of neighbours and passers-by permission should be granted for demolition and reconstruction of the same. 9. Consequently, petition is allowed. Impugned orders are set aside. Tenanted shops stand released in favour of landlord/petitioner under Section 21 (1) (b) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and tenants are directed to hand over the peaceful vacant possession of the tenanted shops to the landlord/petitioner within thirty days from today. Thereafter, landlord/ petitioner shall reconstruct the entire building, as per sanctioned map within next two years and thereafter, shall let out the two newly constructed shops of the same measurement to the tenant/respondents, herein, within next six months. No costs.