Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 566 (UTT)

Gopal Krishna Verma v. Tahir

2016-09-08

V.K.BIST

body2016
JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. Supplementary Affidavit has been filed by the petitioner in the Court today. Same is accepted on record. 2. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the Civil Judge, Senior Division (Prescribed Authority), Nainital to conclude the proceeding of Suit No. RCC No. 2 of 2016 (Gopal Krishna Verma Versus Moh. Tahir), pending before him expeditiously, according to rule 15(2) of the Act No. 13 of 1972. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner purchased House No. 317 at Jai Lal Sah, Bara Bazar, Mallital on 13.07.2009. At the time of purchase, the respondent has been tenant on 2nd floor of the premises of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the premise in question is very old one and the provisions of the Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable on the same. The petitioner for the purpose to get vacate the premises in dispute, on 20.11.2009 served a notice to the respondent, as provided in the provision of Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, in which the petitioner duly informed the respondent about the purchase of the premises in question and further terminated his tenancy and asked to vacate the tenanted premises. Thereafter, the petitioner, after completion of three years, as provided under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, filed a Release Application on the ground of his personal and bonafide need before the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nainital on 21.12.2012. 4. The respondent put his appearance and, instead of filing his written statement/objection, filed a preliminary objection, stating therein that the petitioner has not given six months notice to the respondent/tenant before filing the Release Application, as contemplated in the first proviso of Section 21(1)(a) of the Act No. 13 of 1972. Petitioner filed objection against the preliminary objection filed by the respondent. Vide order 27.09.2014, the Prescribed Authority, after hearing both the parties, rejected the preliminary objection filed by the respondent. Against the said order of the Prescribed Authority, respondent preferred Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2411 of 2014 before this and this Court, vide judgment dated 05.11.2014, allowed the writ petition. However, while allowing the writ petition, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to institute the proceedings afresh for releasing of his property in question, after service of six months notice, as required by first provision of Section 21(1) of the Act. However, while allowing the writ petition, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to institute the proceedings afresh for releasing of his property in question, after service of six months notice, as required by first provision of Section 21(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Review Application no. 923/2014 seeking review of the judgment dated 05.11.2014, which too was dismissed on 11.12.2014 by this Court. Feeling aggrieved by both the judgments dated 05.11.2014 and 11.12.2014 passed by this Court, petitioner preferred Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5567-5568/2015, Gopal Kirshna Verma vs. Shri Tahir, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 21.09.2015, dismissed the Special Leave Petition and upheld the judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2411 of 2014. Thereafter, on 22.09.2015, petitioner sent a six months notice, through registered post, to the respondent, as directed by this Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2411 of 2014, which was duly served upon the respondent. Against the said notice, on 22.09.2015, respondent sent a reply through his counsel. Thereafter, on 30.04.2016, petitioner filed fresh Release Application No. 02 of 2016 under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act No. 13 of 1972 before the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nainital on the ground of his personal need and the need of his family. 5. Upon filing of the release application, the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nainital on 02.05.2016 issued notice/summons to the respondent by both ways. The summons were duly served upon the respondent and upon receiving the summons, the respondent put his appearance through his counsel Sri Siddhartha Sah and Sri Deepak Sah, Advocates and sought time to file written statement/objection against the release application. Thereafter, the matter was fixed on 08.06.2016, 25.06.2016, 16.07.2016, 06.08.2016; but, the respondent, instead of filing written statement/objection, just to linger on the proceedings, filed an application with preliminary objections with the prayer to defer filing of written statement till the disposal of preliminary objection. The Prescribed Authority, upon the preliminary objection filed by the respondent, called the objection from the petitioner. The petitioner has also filed his objection before the Court below and now the respondent just to unnecessary linger on the matter, sought adjournments. Thereafter, the matter was fixed on 20.08.2016 and 03.09.2016. The Prescribed Authority, upon the preliminary objection filed by the respondent, called the objection from the petitioner. The petitioner has also filed his objection before the Court below and now the respondent just to unnecessary linger on the matter, sought adjournments. Thereafter, the matter was fixed on 20.08.2016 and 03.09.2016. The respondent did not argue the matter and sought adjournment from the Court and, now, the matter is fixed for 24.09.2016 for arguments. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that direction may be issued to the Civil Judge, Senior Division (Prescribed Authority), Nainital to conclude the proceeding of Suit No. RCC No. 2 of 2016 (Gopal Krishna Verma Versus Moh. Tahir), at the earliest. 6. After considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the material available on record and also considering the fact that initially, suit was filed in the year 2012 and further considering the provision of Rule 15(3) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, which provides that every application, as far as possible, be decided within two months from the date of its presentation, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Civil Judge, Senior Division (Prescribed Authority), Nainital to decide the Suit No. RCC No. 2 of 2016 (Gopal Krishna Verma Versus Moh. Tahir), very-very expeditiously, positively within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. The trial Court is directed not to grant any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.