Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 115 (UTT)

Ramesh Azad v. District Judge, Dehradun

2019-02-21

MANOJ K.TIWARI

body2019
JUDGMENT : Manoj K. Tiwari, J. This is tenants’ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against the judgment and order dated 17.05.2005 passed by learned District Judge, Dehradun in Rent Control Appeal No. 104 of 2004 whereby the judgment rendered by learned Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun dated 24.07.2004 was set-aside and the release application of landlord was allowed. 2. The third respondent owns a double storied house known as Rama House, Barlowganj, Mussoorie and petitioners are tenant in a portion of the said house. Respondent no. 3 wanted the portion let out to the petitioners released for her personal need, therefore, she filed an application for release under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short ‘U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972’) with the contention that the petitioner no. 1 was inducted as tenant in respect of a shop at the monthly rent of Rs.200/-, however, he is using the same for residential purpose also. It was further contended in the release application that she intends to seek voluntary retirement from service and her elder sister is also going to retire within few months, therefore, she needs the shop so that she can start some business with her sister. 3. After service of notice, petitioner no. 1 entered appearance before Prescribed Authority and filed his written statement disputing the need set up by the third respondent. It was further stated that the rate of rent of the premises in question is Rs.250/- per month, which is being regularly paid. It was also stated that the premises in question was let out by the previous owner of the building to Smt. Usha Rani, i.e. wife of petitioner No. 1. Subsequently, the third respondent amended her release application and impleaded Smt. Usha Rani as opposite party no. 2. 4. It was also stated that the premises in question was let out by the previous owner of the building to Smt. Usha Rani, i.e. wife of petitioner No. 1. Subsequently, the third respondent amended her release application and impleaded Smt. Usha Rani as opposite party no. 2. 4. Both the parties, led their evidence and the prescribed authority after considering entire material on record rejected the release application filed by the third respondent vide judgment and order dated 24.07.2004 mainly on the ground that the premises in question is residential in nature, which cannot be released for business purpose in view of clause (ii) of the third proviso to Section 21(1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, which reads as follows:- “Provided also that no application under clause (a) shall be entertained- (ii) in the case of any residential building, for occupation for business purposes.”” 3. The third respondent had filed a rent deed dated 15.09.1986 alongwith her affidavit as paper no. 14-A in support of her contention that the premises in question was let out as a shop and not as a residence. Petitioners challenged the said document. Learned Prescribed Authority disbelieved the rent deed produced by the third respondent on the ground that it is not signed by the landlord, which is against normal practice. Thus, learned Prescribed Authority recorded the finding that, the premises in question is residential in nature. 4. Feeling aggrieved by rejection of her application, the third respondent filed an application under Section 22 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and the learned District Judge vide judgment and order dated 17.05.2005, set-aside the order passed by learned Prescribed Authority and allowed the release application of the landlord. Thus, feeling aggrieved, tenants have approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 6. Clause (ii) of the third proviso to Section 21(1) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 imposes a legal bar against entertaining an application seeking release of a premises for business purpose, in case it was let out for residential purpose. 7. A perusal of the judgment rendered by learned Prescribed Authority indicates that the only document relied upon by the landlady was the rent deed in support of her contention that the premises in question was let out for business purpose. 7. A perusal of the judgment rendered by learned Prescribed Authority indicates that the only document relied upon by the landlady was the rent deed in support of her contention that the premises in question was let out for business purpose. Learned Prescribed Authority after discussing the material on record, recorded a finding that premises in question was let out for residential purpose. However, learned Appellate Court reversed the judgment rendered by the Prescribed Authority without setting aside the reasoning given by learned Prescribed Authority on the aforesaid aspect. 7. In such view of the matter, the impugned judgment and order dated 17.05.2005 rendered by learned District Judge, Dehradun is set aside. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the learned District Judge, Dehradun for deciding the appeal afresh. Since, the release application was filed in the year 1997, therefore, this Court hopes and expects that learned District Judge will decide the appeal, as expeditiously as possible, without granting unnecessary adjournment to the parties.