Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 152 (UTT)

Rajan Khanna v. Vikas Gupta @ Jimmi

2016-04-05

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is a tenant in a building of the respondents, who are the landlords. The respondents filed a suit under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (from hereinafter referred to as “Act No. 13 of 1972”) for eviction before the learned Civil Judge (JD) Haldwani, District Nainital, which is pending since year 2014, where the proceedings are summary in nature and are adjudicated generally on exchange of affidavits. 2. Evidently the application under Section 21(1)(a) of Act No. 13 of 1972 has been moved by the respondents for their bonafide need, as they wanted to start business in the said premises. 3. The petitioner moved an application before the court concerned in order to show that the respondent/tenant is already working in Ashoka Leyland and for this purpose he wants to summon the officers of Ashoka Leyland. This application of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 09.03.2016. Hence, the present writ petition before this Court. 4. Heard Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, Advocate present for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application has been filed before the trial court in order to summon the officers of Ashoka Leyland under Section 34 of Act No. 13 of 1972, which was ultimately dismissed by the court concerned. 6. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner can always prove his case before the court concerned by way of filing an affidavit or by way of filing any document, to show that the respondent is an employee of Ashoka Leyland and hence does not require the premises for his bonafide need. He is also at liberty to seek inspection or get a report by order of the court by appointment of a commission. All this can be done to ensure whether the landlord has a bonafide need at all as he claims. All the same it is not necessary for the said purpose to summon an officer of Ashoka Leyland who otherwise has nothing to do with the case. These proceedings cannot linger on endlessly and must be completed expeditiously. Therefore, the rejection of the application of the petitioner for summoning of an officer of the Ashoka Leyland vide order dated 09.03.2016 seems to be correct. 7. Subject to the above observations, the petition stands dismissed.