AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
12 paragraphs · 209 wordsManoj Kumar Tiwari, J
This is landlord’s petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order passed by Prescribed Authority, Ramnagar, District
Nainital in Rent Control Case No. 6 of 2010, as affirmed by District Judge, Nainital in Rent Control Appeal No. 7of 2011.
From perusal of the order impugned in the writ petition, it reveals that the release application filed by the landlord under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P.
Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was rejected by the Prescribed Authority and Prescribed Authority’s order
was affirmed in appeal. Thus, landlord had lost from both the courts below.
This writ petition was filed in the year 2012.
Mr. Sarvesh Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has apprised the Court that after filing of the writ petition, parties have entered
into compromise and possession of the premises was handed-over to the petitioner/landlord by respondent in the year 2013.
Since, the premises in question has been vacated by the tenant pursuant to the compromise way back in the year 2013, there is no point in keeping
this writ petition on the file of this Court.
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.