Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 486 (UTT)

Uday Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-08-24

RAVINDRA MAITHANI

body2023
JUDGMENT : The petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.10.2022, passed by the respondent no.4, the District Magistrate, Nainital, by which the directions were given to unseal the premises and other related reliefs. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had applied for lease of a shop in the name of his friend Dilip Singh on 04.03.2023. After the death of Dilip Singh, the petitioner himself applied for taking on rent the shop under the control of the respondent no.6, Nagar Palika Parishad Nainital (“Nagar Palika”). It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.7 had raised certain constructions in the shop, which was sealed by the respondent no.5, the District Level Development Authority, Nainital (“the Authority”). But subsequently, on the application of the respondent no.7 Deepak Sah, on 10.10.2022, orders for unsealing the premises have been passed. The petitioner is aggrieved by that order, which is impugned. 4. The respondent nos. 5 and 6 both have filed counter affidavits. According to them, the shop had already been leased out to the respondent no.7. The petitioner has no locus standi to raise any objection. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the shop was vacant. The shop of the Authority may only be leased out, as per the Government Order dated 30.04.2010, after obtaining prior sanction from the State Government. The shop was never leased out to the Capitol Cinema. Only a limited portion of the Capitol Cinema, which includes the office, the hall and the toilets on the ground floor were leased out to the Capitol Cinema. The shop is at the first floor of the building. It is still vacant. The petitioner is lawfully entitled to take the shop on lease. His application has not been considered. The petitioner had made representation. The matter is under inquiry by the order of the State Authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the lease deed, which is Annexure 12 to the writ petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.5, the Authority would submit that the petitioner has no locus standi. The respondent no.6 is in the better position to tell about the possession and lessee of the shop. But, according to learned counsel, the shop has been leased out to New Capitol Cinema. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.5, the Authority would submit that the petitioner has no locus standi. The respondent no.6 is in the better position to tell about the possession and lessee of the shop. But, according to learned counsel, the shop has been leased out to New Capitol Cinema. He would refer to Clauses 13 and 14 of the lease deed as well. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.6 would also submit that the shop has been allotted to Capitol Cinema. It can further be not leased out to the petitioner because at present M/s Capitol Cinema is holder of the lease. 8. The respondent no. 7 has also filed a counter affidavit. According to him, the shop is part of the Capitol Cinema, which has already been allotted and leased out in favour of him. The petitioner has no locus standi to raise any objection. 9. The property belongs to the respondent no.6 the Nagar Palika. It is the case of the respondent no.6 the Nagar Palika that the shop has been given on lease to the respondent no.7. The respondent no.5, the Development Authority also supports the claim of the respondent no.6, the Nagar Palika. 10. The petitioner is neither owner, nor the lessee of the shop-in-question. Admittedly, the respondent no.6 the Nagar Palika is owner of the shop. The respondent no.6 the Nagar Palika claims that the shop has been leased out to the respondent no.7, Deepak Sah. The respondent no.7 accepts that the shop has been leased out or given on rent to him. This is what, the respondent no.5, the Development Authority claims. In fact, at this stage, the petitioner is stranger to the cause. He has no locus standi to file a writ petition. He has no vested, direct or indirect interest in the property at present. 11. The lease deed has been referred to, which is Annexure 12 to the writ petition. In page 2, it records that the lease had been given in furtherance of the order of the Secretary, Urban Development, State of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. The description of the property has been given in Clauses 1, 13 and 14 of the lease deed. 12. The fact remains that in Clause 14, the words used are “Capitol Hall Building”. The Court refrains to make deeper scrutiny of these words. Does it mean the whole building? The description of the property has been given in Clauses 1, 13 and 14 of the lease deed. 12. The fact remains that in Clause 14, the words used are “Capitol Hall Building”. The Court refrains to make deeper scrutiny of these words. Does it mean the whole building? Does it mean the ground floor without first floor? The Court leaves it at it for the simple reason that the owner the Nagar Palika claims that the whole building was leased out to the respondent no.7 and the respondent no.7 accepts it. If there is any dispute about the premises that has been leased out to the respondent no.7 that may be interpreted at that stage, not in the instant matter. 13. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in the petition, accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 14. The petition is dismissed.