Hamid & Others vs Narendra Kumar

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

Its’ a tenants’ writ petition, which has been preferred by them being aggrieved against the Appellate Court’s judgement dated

10.11.2020, as was passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Rent Control Appeal No. 6 of 2017,

Narendra Kumar Vs. Shri Hamid (deceased), now represented by heirs. By virtue of the Appellate Court’s judgement, as referred above, the

Appeal preferred by the respondent/landlord: had been allowed and as a consequence thereto, it has resulted into allowing of the Release Application,

which was preferred by the respondent/landlord under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, which was registered as Rent Control Suit

No. 6 of 2012, Narendra Kumar Vs. Hamid.

The writ petition was preferred by the tenant/petitioner, before this Court, the respondent/landlord who was appearing through the caveator, Mr.

P.C. Petshali, Advocate, represented his cause and at the initial stage of argument, he has raised an objection that in compliance of the Appellate

Court’s judgement, the respondent/landlord has already remitted the amount in compliance of the 2nd proviso to Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P Act

No. 13 of 1972, which was duly received by the tenant/petitioner, and as such the contention of the caveator counsel was that since the

tenant/petitioner has already received the amount as a consequence of the judgement of the Appellate Court, he has conceded to the judgement and

hence has ceased his rights to give a challenge to it.

However, there was controversy raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner; that in fact he has not received any amount as such which has

been tendered by the respondent/landlord; hence the caveator was called upon to place the details of record with regard to the money which was

remitted and the mode in which it was remitted to the petitioner/tenant.

The caveator had filed an affidavit on 19.12.2020, bringing on record the receipts as well as the certificate which he has received from the Post

Master General showing that the amount of Rs. 12,000/- was in fact remitted to the petitioner/tenant and was received by him. Though this fact was

denied by the petitioner No. 1/2 i.e. Mr. Nahid Ali Khan, who appeared in person and participated in the proceedings before this Court, which was

held on 31.12.2020.

By virtue of an order dated 31.12.2020, this Court called upon the Post Master (HSG-1), Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, to participate in

the proceedings of the writ petition through video conferencing but he is not available today. Considering to the fact that the parties to the writ petition

and particularly, the tenant had made a statement before this Court through his counsel that he wants to vacate the premises in question, for which he

prays for that a reasonable time may be granted to him. The said prayer of the petitioner has been accepted by the respondent/landlord, who too is

present in the Court, and who makes the statement that if a reasonable time is granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises in question, he would

not be raising any objection, as such.

In response to it, the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought two years time to vacate the premises, but this Court is of the view that two years

period, considering the age of litigation and particularly once the release itself was initiated in the year 2012, it would be too a long period to be granted

to the petitioner to vacate the premises.

However, taking a pragmatic view, this Court is of the view, that 1½ years time is granted to the petitioners to vacate the tenement in question

and hand over the vacant and peaceful possession to the respondent/landlord. This time period for vacating the premises within 1½ period is being

granted to the petitioners, who are present in person today. Hence for the aforesaid reasons, they are granted 1½ years time to vacate the premises

subject to the following conditions:-

(i) That petitioners would submit a joint affidavit, by way of an undertaking before the learned Prescribed Authority, Kashipur, District Udham Singh

Nagar, giving an undertaking to the effect that they would be vacating the premises in question within the period of 1½ years from the date of

receipt of the certified copy of this order and would be handing over peaceful and vacant possession to the landlord/respondent of the tenement.

(ii) During the period of their occupancy for a period of 1½ years, they would continue to remit the rent as was being paid by them; including the

taxes payable towards the tenement in question by 10th of each month.

(iii) The petitioners hereby undertake that during this period, they will not alter or change the nature of the property in any manner whatsoever except

without a prior written permission from the respondent/landlord.

(iv) The petitioners further jointly undertook that during this period of 1½ years, they will not induct any 3rd person or create a sub tenancy over the

tenement in question.

(v) The petitioners undertake that in case if any of the covenants, as detailed above is violated by the petitioners, it will be open for the

respondent/landlord to get the decree executed by filing an appropriate application before the learned Prescribed Authority in accordance with the

provisions contained under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

Subject to above conditions, the writ petition stand dismissed.