High CourtsSingle Bench

Vijay Bansal & Another vs Dr. Vinod Kumar Goyal & Another

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 23 May 2022 · Citation: (2022) 05 UK CK 0083

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation Of Letting, Rent And Eviction) Act, 1972 — Section 21(1)(a), 22 · Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 227
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 522 Of 2022
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

12 paragraphs · 471 words

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

1.

This is tenants’ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution against order dated 10.10.2019 passed by Prescribed Authority/Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) 1st, Dehradun in P.A. Case No. 47 of 2015 and the judgment dated 15.01.2022 passed by learned Additional District Judge 4th, Dehradun in Rent Control Appeal No. 33 of 2019.

2.

Landlord (respondents herein) had filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short “Act No. 13 of 1972”) for release of a shop. The said application was allowed by Prescribed Authority vide judgment dated 10.10.2019. Petitioners challenged the said judgment by filing an appeal under Section 22 of Act No. 13 of 1972, which too has been dismissed by learned 4th Additional District Judge, Dehradun vide judgment dated 15.01.2022. Challenging the aforesaid two judgments, petitioners have filed this writ petition.

3.

This Court vide order dated 29.03.2022 had passed interim order in favour of petitioners. Today, matter is listed on an application filed by petitioners, which is supported by an affidavit. In para 2 of the affidavit, it has been stated that petitioners be given two years time for vacating the shop in question.

4.

Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that petitioners are not using the shop in question and it is lying locked, as petitioners are running business from some other place. Thus, he submits that two years time would be too long and petitioners may be granted lesser time for vacating the shop in question.

5.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioners are granted time till 30.05.2023 for vacating the shop in question. This, however, shall be subject to fulfillment of following conditions by the petitioners:-

(1) Petitioners shall file an undertaking in the form of an affidavit before learned Prescribed Authority, within three weeks from today that they shall vacate the shop in question and handover vacant and peaceful possession thereof to the respondents, on or before 30.05.2023.

(2) Petitioners shall pay ₹15,000/- per month as use and occupation charges to the landlord on or before 7th day of each succeeding month.

(3) Arrears of use and occupation charges in terms of interim order dated 29.03.2022, if any, shall be deposited by petitioners before the Prescribed Authority, positively within four weeks from today.

(4) Petitioners shall not induct any other person as sub-tenant in the shop and they shall not make structural changes nor they shall cause any damage to the shop in question.

(5) In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, petitioners shall not be entitled to continue in the shop in question upto 30.05.2023 and they shall become liable to be evicted forthwith.

6.

With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed of.