Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 177 (UTT)

JAGAT PRASAD v. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

2015-03-26

ALOK SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present petition is filed assailing the judgment and order dated 17.09.2003, passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Dehradun, in Rent Control Appeal No. 140 of 2001, Col. Chandra Prakash (Retired) Vs. Jagat Prasad @ Jagat Prakash, whereby appeal filed by the landlord was allowed and tenanted property in possession of the tenant/ petitioners herein, was directed to be released in favour of the landlord and petitioners were directed to handover the vacant possession of the tenanted property to the landlord within one month. 2. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that landlord respondent no. 2 herein, was serving in Indian Army, however, he stood retired from the Indian Army on 31st March, 1990 and thereafter started living at Faridabad, Haryana with one of his sons. Landlord respondent no. 2 herein, moved an application being P.A. Case No. 43 of 1999, under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (hereinafter called as the U.P. Rent Act, 1972), for the release of the tenanted premises saying that after the retirement from the Army, landlord got released different portions of the same building from other three tenants; building is old construction; since weather of Dehradun suits to him, therefore, he wants to shift at Dehradun to reside permanently at Dehradun; after getting the tenanted portion released in his favour, he will demolish it and raise new construction on the entire plot no. 81 and thereafter shall start residing therein. Landlord has further stated in the application that since his son is an Army Officer, therefore, his wife (daughter in law of the landlord) will also stay with the landlord in the newly constructed building alongwith her children, so that they may get education in Dehradun. Further, case of the landlord is that he shall also start Security Agency business in the building after getting it reconstructed. 3. Tenant/petitioners herein filed written statement and stated that alleged need of the landlord is neither bona-fide nor pressing; in fact, landlord after getting the tenant evicted, wants to sell entire property for huge amount; alleged need of the landlord is eye-wash. 4. Learned Prescribed Authority, having heard both the sides was pleased to dismiss the application seeking release of the disputed premises vide judgment and order dated 20.07.2001. 4. Learned Prescribed Authority, having heard both the sides was pleased to dismiss the application seeking release of the disputed premises vide judgment and order dated 20.07.2001. Feeling aggrieved, landlord has preferred Rent Control Appeal No. 140 of 2001 under Section 22 of the U.P. Rent Act, 1972, which was allowed vide impugned judgment and order dated 17.09.2003. Feeling aggrieved, tenant petitioners herein, has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 5. It is important to mention herein that petitioners are not denying the relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties and are claiming themselves as tenant of the landlord respondent no.2 herein. 6. Undisputedly, landlord stood retired from the Indian Army in the year 1990 and at the time of moving the application was residing alongwith his son at Faridabad, Hariyana. In the present case landlord wants to shift permanently at Dehradun, so that he may enjoy his retired life and may keep his health good due to good whether at Dehradun and may start Security Agency business. Every Citizen of this country has every legal right to reside separately from his sons and no landlord can be pressurized that he should continue to live with his son and should not reside separately. Normally, desire of the landlord to live separately from his son is deemed to be bona fide need and cannot be said to be a mere desire. Moreover, tenant has absolutely no right to dictate the terms to the landlord that landlord should continue to live with his son. 7. Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Vandana Singh, learned counsel appearing for the tenant-petitioners herein submits that since tenant-petitioners has reasonable apprehension that after getting the building evicted from the possession of the tenant, landlord may sell it of on higher cost should not be ignored. 8. Section 24 of the U.P. Rent Act, 1972, takes care of the submissions made by Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the tenant/petitioners. If building after getting released is not being used by the landlord, tenant has every right to seek re-entry, therefore, apprehension of Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners seems to be hypothetical. 9. Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the tenant/petitioners. If building after getting released is not being used by the landlord, tenant has every right to seek re-entry, therefore, apprehension of Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners seems to be hypothetical. 9. Since, landlord wants to raise new constructions after demolition for the purpose of his personal use, therefore, application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Rent Act, 1972 is very well maintainable. 10. For the reasons recorded hereinbefore, I do not find any reason to take a contrary view to the view taken by the learned Appellate Court, therefore, petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 11. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I grant six months time to the tenant-petitioners herein to vacate and handover the peaceful possession to the landlord on payment of Rs. 1000/- per month as mesne profit.