High CourtsSingle Bench

Radhey Shyam Dhingra vs Kaushal Aggrawal

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 12 April 2019 · Citation: (2019) 04 UK CK 0077

HON’BLE JUDGES
Lok Pal Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation Of Letting, Rent And Eviction) Act, 1972 — Section 21(1)(a)
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 3826 Of 2018 (M/S)
Ask AI about this case

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

16 paragraphs · 483 words

Lok Pal Singh, J

1.

MCC No.291 of 2019

This is restoration application moved by the petitioner to recall the order dated 09.04.2019 whereby the writ petition was dismissed in non-prosecution.

2.

Heard and perused the affidavit filed in support of the restoration application.

3.

Cause shown appears to be genuine. Restoration application is allowed. Order dated 9.04.2019 is hereby recalled. Writ petition is restored to its original number.

4.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on merit and perused the record.

5.

By means of present writ petition, petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 28.02.2017 passed by Prescribed Authority (Rent Control) Haldwani in R.C.C. No.05 of 2008 Kaushal Aggarwal vs. Radhey Shyam Dhingra as well as judgment and order dated 01.12.2018 passed by 1st Addl. District Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital in Rent Control Appeal No.02 of 2017, whereby the application filed by the respondent filed under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 has been allowed.

6.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

7.

After arguing the writ petition at some length, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner, on the basis of instructions received from his client, would fairly submit that the petitioner is ready to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in question to the landlord-respondent, but two years' time be granted to the petitioner to vacate the tenanted accommodation. Learned counsel for the landlord-respondent submits that he has no objection to the said proposal.

8.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after considering the nature of dispute between the parties, the tenant-petitioner is granted time upto 31.03.2021 to handover peaceful possession of the premises in question to the respondents-landlords subject to the petitioner giving an undertaking within one month from today before the Prescribed Authority to the following effect:

i) The petitioner shall file an undertaking before the trial court on or before 12.05.2019 that he shall vacate the premises in question on or before 31.03.2021 and handover vacant and peaceful possession of the premises in question to the landlord.

ii) The petitioner should undertake to pay the entire arrears of rent, if any, to the landlord within a period of three months from today.

iii) The petitioner should continue to pay the rent for the use and occupation of the premises in question on each succeeding month till vacation of the accommodation on 7th day of each month.

iv) The petitioner shall not induct any other person in the premises in question.

v) In the event of default of any of the aforesaid conditions, the petitioner shall not be entitled to continue in the premises in question up to 31.03.2021 and the decree shall be executed forthwith.

9.

With the aforesaid conditions, present writ petition is finally disposed of. No order as to costs.