Bazar vs Unknown
2022 Latest Caselaw 8487 HP

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
                   ON THE 14th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

                                   BEFORE




                                                                .

              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR
                      CIVIL REVISION NO. 69 OF 2022

    Between:-





     SHRI DEV RAJ DUGGAL, SON OF SHRI
     HARI RAM DUGGAL, MODERN WOOL
     HOUSE, GROUND FLOOR, 80, LOWER





     BAZAR, SHIMLA HP
                                                              ....PETITIONER

    (BY MR. BIMAL GUPTA, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR. GURINDER
    SINGH PARMAR AND MR. VARUN THAKUR, ADVOCATES)

    AND

     SHRI HARISH KUMAR SON OF SHRI
     BHUPINDERJIT KASHYAP, RESIDENT
     OF 80-81, LOWER BAZAAR, SHIMLA HP


                                                             ...RESPONDENT
     (BY MR.BHUPINDERJIT KASHYAP AND
     MR. VIPIN BHATIA, ADVOCATES)




     Whether approved for reporting? Yes.





    This petition coming on for pronouncement this day, the Court passed the
    following:
                                  ORDER

Petitioner has approached this Court against order

dated 25.3.2022, passed by the Appellate Authority-II, Shimla

in Appeal No.2-S/13(b) of 2021, whereby order dated 7.8.2020,

passed by Rent Controller-III, Shimla in an application preferred

in Rent Petition No. 170-A of 2019/17 has been affirmed.

CR No.69 of 2022 ...2...

2. Parties herein shall be referred, for convenience, as

per their status before the Rent Controller i.e. as 'landlord' and

'tenant' respectively.

.

3. Landlord has filed main petition for eviction of

tenant from the shop premises rented to the tenant, on the

basis of bonafide requirement of landlord for setting up a

business by his wife in the said shop premises being most

suitable shop for that.

4.

In reply to rent petition, preliminary objection has

been taken that landlord has also let out a shop in the same

building to a new tenant within five years of filing of petition

and landlord has received vacant possession of substantial area

on first floor of building after its vacation by a tenant and

handed over possession thereof to another party, i.e. to an

existing tenant, to allow him to have a larger area under

tenancy and entire second floor of building in question is lying

vacant and is in occupation of the landlord and, therefore,

maintainability of rent petition has been questioned.

5. Reply to eviction petition was filed in June, 2017.

6. After filing of rejoinder, issues were framed on

20.7.2017 and case was fixed for evidence of landlord on

31.8.2017. On 31.8.2017, witnesses were not present. On that

day, an application was preferred by tenant under Order 7 Rule

11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC.

CR No.69 of 2022 ...3...

7. In application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, by

referring grounds already taken in reply regarding renting out

of a portion of premises within five years to someone, vacation

.

of premises by another tenant and handing over possession

thereof to already existing tenant and also availability of vacant

hall in the second floor, it was also contended that landlord was

occupying another residential and commercial premises within

urban limits of area and has rented out two premises for non-

residential and commercial purposes in the same building

within five years and, therefore, eviction petition deserves to

be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

8. Reply to application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was

filed on 12.9.2017. Thereafter, time to file rejoinder was taken

twice and ultimately on 30.11.2017 the application was

directed to be taken into consideration, but on 19.12.2017 for

non-availability of original counsel for tenant it was adjourned

and, thereafter, either for request on behalf of landlord or

tenant, it was adjourned, but finally it was dismissed on

20.6.2017.

9. Being aggrieved by aforesaid order dated

20.6.2017, tenant approached the High Court by filing CMPMO

No. 290 of 2018, titled Dev Raj Duggal vs. Harish Kumar. The

same was dismissed on 12.9.2019 by a Coordinate Bench of

this Court on the grounds that in the H.P. Urban Rent Control

CR No.69 of 2022 ...4...

Act, 1987 (the Rent Act), the Rent Controller has no explicit

jurisdiction vested in it to apply mandate of Order 7 Rule 11

CPC upon a rent petition; there is no specific contemplation in

.

CPC for making the aforesaid provision applicable in a rent

petition; for want of explicit applicability of aforesaid provisions,

Rent Controller is incapacitated to adjudicate rent petition like

a Civil Suit and, thus, the application was held to be mis-

constituted and beyond the ambit of specific legislation, i.e.

Rent Act, governing and appertaining the trial of eviction

petition by Rent Controller. It was further observed that Rule

12 of H.P. Urban Rent Rules 1990 (Rent Rules) provided specific

areas wherein principles of CPC shall be guided principles for

adjudicating the application under Rent Act but not provisions

of CPC and it does not contemplate applicability of CPC in toto

to the eviction petition and, thus, it was concluded that except

explicit applicability of CPC in restricted manner specifically

enumerated under the Act and Rules, mandates specific

exclusion of CPC in the trial of eviction petition. Apart from this,

the plea of tenant was also rejected on merit by returning

findings that grounds taken in application were also not

sufficient grounds to conclude that rent petition, did not, at an

incipient stage disclose any valid accruable cause(s) of action

or it infracts the consonant therewith provisions of Rent Act and

it was observed that after adducing the evidence on issue, the

CR No.69 of 2022 ...5...

Rent Controller has to return findings thereon and, therefore, it

was observed that it would be premature at that stage to

conclude that the ground taken in application is merit-worthy

.

warranting dismissal of rent petition at initial stage.

10. After dismissal of aforesaid petition, rent petition

was resumed before the Rent Controller and was listed for

evidence of petitioner on 30.1.2020 on which date another

application under Order 14(3)(a)(i) of H.P. Urban Rent Control

Act was preferred by tenant on the same grounds on which

application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was filed earlier,

however, adding two more paras giving information with

respect to filing of earlier application as well as CMPMO No. 290

of 2018 preferred by tenant and dismissal thereof. The only

difference in this application was that it was filed by citing

Section 14(3)(a)(i) of Rent Act instead of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

11. This application was dismissed by Rent Controller

vide order dated 7.8.2020. The said order was assailed by

tenant by filing Rent Appeal No.2-S/13(b) of 2021 which was

dismissed by Appellate Authority with observation that tenant

would have ample opportunity to prove his contention as made

in application during the proceedings of main petition by

observing that question raised by tenant is a question of law

and fact which is to be determined after leading evidence by

both parties and, therefore, it cannot be determined at that

CR No.69 of 2022 ...6...

stage as being sought by tenant by filing the application

particularly when rent petition is pending for landlord's

evidence and thus application was held to be not maintainable

.

at that stage.

12. Learned arguing counsel for tenant has submitted

that landlord can seek eviction of tenant under Rent Act on any

of grounds or more than one as enumerated in Section 14 of

Rent Act but in present case ground on which eviction is sought

is neither available to landlord nor mentioned in the Act. He has

referred provisions of Section 14(3)(d) which provides a ground

for eviction of tenant if premises is required for use as an office

or a consulting room by son of landlord who intends to practice

as a lawyer, an architect, a dentist, an engineer, a veterinary

surgeon or a medical practitioner including a practitioner of

Ayurvedic Unani or Homeopathic System of Medicine or for the

residence of his son who is married. He has further submitted

that in rent petition, premises has been sought to be evicted

for bonafide requirement of wife and there is no provision

available in Rent Act for eviction for setting up a business for

wife and, therefore, rent petition is neither competent nor

maintainable but is an abuse to the process of law. He has also

reiterated other grounds taken in reply to rent petition as well

as in applications filed before the Rent Controller under Order 7

Rule 11 CPC and under Section 14(3) (a)(i) of the Act.

CR No.69 of 2022 ...7...

13. It has also been argued that when rent petition on

the face of it is not maintainable then there is no reason for

continuing the same causing wastage of time of Court by

.

continuing trial.

14. Learned counsel for the landlord has submitted that

there is no provision under the Rent Act to file, maintain and

adjudicate such application as has been filed by tenant and

further that on identical grounds application was dismissed and

against the said dismissal, CMPMO No. 290 of 2018 was

preferred by tenant which was dismissed by holding that

mandate of Order 7 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code is not

applicable in the rent petition and applicability of provisions of

CPC are deemed to have been specifically excluded except

those which have been specifically mentioned in Rule 12 of

Rent Rules which provides applicability of CPC in rent petition

at particular stage which means that all provisions of CPC are

not to be followed by Rent Controller in disposing of a petition

under Rent Act. Further that issues raised in the application

were already framed for adjudication in main petition which are

to be decided on the basis of evidence led by parties, and,

therefore, it has been contended that application filed by

tenant under Section 14(3)(a)(i) of Rent Act is barred by res-

judicata and further that there is no provision of filing and

adjudicating such application under Section 14 of the Rent Act.

CR No.69 of 2022 ...8...

15. On behalf of landlord, it has been further submitted

that in para 18(a)(i) of rent petition landlord has specifically

stated that shop premises in occupation of tenant is most

.

suitable for the landlord and landlord has not vacated 'such

non-residential premises' without sufficient cause within five

years of filing of petition and plea taken in this para and in

reply thereto is to be adjudicated by Rent Controller on the

basis of evidence to be led by parties and, therefore, it would

be pre-mature to decide these issues in an application like the

application filed in present case as the landlord has every right

to explain his plea in evidence. It has been further contended

that plea of tenant that premises is required by wife of landlord

to set up a business is not a valid ground for eviction of tenant

is not sustainable, for explanation of 'family' as given in

Explanation-2 of Section 14(3)(a) of Rent Act also includes wife

in it. It has been further submitted that in any case this issue is

not to be decided in an application that too without leading

evidence, at this stage, being not permissible in the procedure

prescribed under the Rent Act and Rent Rules for disposing of

an application.

16. Learned counsel for landlord, to substantiate

maintainability of eviction petition, for setting up a business for

wife, has referred pronouncements of the Supreme Court in

Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal, (2002) 5 SCC 397; and

CR No.69 of 2022 ...9...

Kailash Chand and another v. Dharam Dass, (2005) 5 SCC 375,

as well as judgments of this High Court, based on that, in Jagat

Ram Chauhan v. Smt. Avinash Partap and another, Latest HLJ

.

2014 (HP) 420 and judgment dated 18.7.2019, passed in Civil

Revision No.41 of 2019, tilted as Mandeep Singh v. Gian Chand.

17. It has been contended on behalf of landlord that

tenant is 88 years old, having two shops in his possession,

whose wife has expired and two daughters are living and

earning their livelihood separately but the tenant in order to

harass the landlord is filing such applications and taking

adjournments for lingering on the matter.

18. Unless specifically excluded, provisions and

principles of procedure contained in the Civil Procedure Code

shall be applicable in civil proceedings. Exclusion of provisions

of CPC may be implied as well as explicit.

19. I have gone through the record and have

considered the submissions made by learned counsel for

parties.

20. Rent Act is a special enactment framed and made

applicable to all urban areas of Himachal Pradesh. Rent Rules

provide procedure for conducting the proceedings by Rent

Controller under this Act. Civil Procedure Code is a general

enactment prescribing procedure in civil litigations. No doubt

proceedings under the Rent Act are also civil in nature but such

CR No.69 of 2022 ...10...

proceedings are governed and regulated by Rent Act and Rules

made thereunder.

21. Rent Control Act is a complete Code in itself dealing

.

with filing, adjudication and disposal of rent petitions under it. It

provides determination of fair rent, revision of fair rent in

certain cases, increase in fair rent, complaint against cutting off

or withholding essential supply or services, eviction of tenants,

recovery of immediate possession of premises, also recovery of

possession for limited period and deposit of rent by tenant with

the Controller as provided under Sections 4, 5, 6, 11, 14, 15, 17

and 21 of the Act.

22. Section 24 provides an appeal against order passed

by Rent Controller and Section 24(5) empowers the High Court

to entertain revision petition, on application of any aggrieved

party or on its own motion or calling and examining the record

related to any order or proceedings taken under the Rent Act.

23. In Rent Rules, Rule 3 prescribes that application

under Sections 4, 5, 6, 11, 14 and 15 shall be made in Form

"A", Rule 4 provides procedure for permission and recovery of

possession under Section 17 of the Act by filing an application

in Form "B" and Rule 8 provides filing of an application under

Section 21 for deposit/payment of rent with Rent Controller in

Form "D". The manner, in which an application is to be made

and procedure to be followed by Controller in disposing of such

CR No.69 of 2022 ...11...

application, has been provided in Rule 5 and Rule 12. Rule 14

provides procedure for filing appeal whereas Rule 15 provides

manner in which application for revision is to be made under

.

Section 24 of the Act.

24. Scheme of Rent Act and Rent Rules not only

impliedly but explicitly prohibits the applicability of all

provisions of Civil Procedure Code, except those mentioned in

the Act and Rules itself, during adjudication of application(s)

under the Rent Act. It also specifies the causes and issues

regarding which applications can be filed under the Rent Act.

Therefore, as already held by Coordinate Bench of this Court in

CMPMO No. 290 of 2018 neither provisions under Order 7 Rule

11 CPC nor similar prayer otherwise is permissible to be made

during adjudication of rent petition.

25. What cannot be done directly can also not be

permitted to be done indirectly. Rule 12 explicitly provides the

procedure to be followed by Rent Controller in disposing of an

application under the Rent Act. Rule 12(2) provides that the

Controller shall give a reasonable opportunity to parties to

state their case. Further that he shall record the evidence of

parties and witnesses examined on either side, and while doing

so, and also in fixing the date for hearing of parties and their

witnesses, in adjourning the proceedings and dismissing the

applications for default or for other sufficient reason, the

CR No.69 of 2022 ...12...

Controller shall be guided by principles of procedure as laid

down in CPC, meaning thereby that during adjudication of an

application under the Rent Act, applicability of CPC is limited to

.

the extent as provided under Rule 12(2) of Rent Rules.

Applications which are permissible to be filed under the Rent

Act have been enumerated in Sections 4 to 6, 11, 14, 15, 17,

21 and procedure and performa, i.e. Forms "A", "B" and "D",

for filing them have also been provided in and with Rules i.e.

Rules 3, 4, and 8. Procedure for filing appeal and revision has

also been prescribed under Rules. Therefore, intention of

Legislation is very clear that CPC or its principles have not been

made applicable in entirety to the proceedings under the Rent

Act and special Act has been enacted for disposing of

applications made therein as expeditiously as possible without

adhering to cumbersome and lengthy procedure provided

under CPC for adjudication of a regular suit. Had the intention

of Legislation to make all provision of CPC applicable, there

would not have been any necessity to mention applicability of

CPC, its certain provisions and principles contained therein with

special reference as provided in Sections 16(9), Section 25 and

Section 26 of Rent Act as well as Rule 5 and Rule 12 of Rent

Rules.

26. Rent Act and Rules provide limited application of

provisions of CPC or principles contained therein. Explanation in

CR No.69 of 2022 ...13...

Section 9 provides that expression "legal representative" has

the same meaning as assigned to it in the Code of Civil

Procedure with further qualification that it includes also, in the

.

case of joint family property the joint family of which the

deceased was a member. Section 16(9) provides that Rent

Controller may exercise the power of review in accordance with

provisions of Order XLVI of CPC where no application for

revision has been made to the High Court. Section 25

empowers the Rent Controller to summon and enforce the

attendance of witnesses and to compel the production of

evidence as the Court is empowered under CPC; Section 66

provides that orders passed under the Rent Act by Controller or

Appellate Authority shall be executable by Controller as a

decree of Civil Suit and for this purpose, Controller shall have

all powers of Civil Court. Rule 5 provides the manner in which

applications are to be made under the Rent Act providing that

every such application shall be signed and verified in the

manner prescribed under Rules 14 and 15 of Order 6 of CPC.

Rule 12 speaks about applicability of principles of procedure as

laid down in CPC with respect to recording the evidence of

parties, examination of witnesses of either side, fixing the

dates for hearing of parties and their witnesses, adjourning the

proceedings and dismissing the applications for default or for

other sufficient reasons. There is no other provision either in

CR No.69 of 2022 ...14...

Rent Act or Rent Rules making applicability of the provisions of

CPC or principles contained therein as a whole in proceedings

under Rent Act. Even Rules 14 and 15 provide a procedure for

.

filing appeal and revision under Section 24 of Rent Act

independently without referring procedure prescribed in CPC.

27. Section 14, especially Section 14(3)(i), of Rent Act

does not provide filing of an application like present one during

pendency of rent petition for rejection of petition as provided in

CPC under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, rather, Rent Act or Rent Rules

nowhere provide filing of such application. Had it been the case

of invoking wrong provisions, invoke for filing applications, this

Court would have considered and decided it on merits without

going into the issue of filing of application by mentioning wrong

provisions as for doing substantial justice, if application would

have otherwise maintainable, it would have been considered

and adjudicated on merits of issues raised therein, but no such

application is permissible under Rent Act, therefore, this

application was liable to be dismissed and thus present petition

arising out of dismissal of such application by Rent Controller

as well as Appellate Authority, is also liable to be dismissed

being not maintainable.

28. Section 14 nowhere, either explicitly or impliedly,

casts duty upon the Rent Controller to entertain such

application as has been preferred by petitioner for determining

CR No.69 of 2022 ...15...

the issues raised therein. Permissibility of such application,

especially in absence of provision under the Rent Act, would

amount to permitting a mini trial during pendency of main

.

petition and it would be not only dehors the provisions but also

against the essence of Rent Act.

29. Section 14 does not provide or speak about filing of

application for rejection of petition/application/eviction petition

as has been filed by tenant in present case under Section

30.

r to 14(3)(a)(i). Therefore, such application is not maintainable.

The Supreme Court in Joginder Pal's case (supra)

has held that expression 'for his own use' is not confined in its

meaning to actual physical user by the landlord personally but

also includes his normal emanations, with following

observations:

"24. We are of the opinion that the expression 'for his

own use' as occurring in Section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the Act cannot be narrowly construed. The expression must be

assigned a wider, liberal and practical meaning. The requirement is not the requirement of the landlord alone in the sense that the landlord must for himself require the accommodation and to fulfill the requirement he

must himself physically occupy the premises. The requirement of a member of the family or of a person on whom the landlord is dependent or who is dependent on the landlord can be considered to be the requirement of the landlord for his own use. In the several decided cases referred to hereinabove we have found the pari materia provisions being interpreted so as to include the requirement of the wife, husband sister, children including son, daughter, a widowed daughter and her son, nephew, coparceners, members of family and dependents and kith and kin in the requirement of landlord as "his" or "his own" requirement and user.

CR No.69 of 2022 ...16...

Keeping in view the social or socio-religious milieu and practices prevalent in a particular section of society or a particular region, to which the landlord belongs, it may be obligation of the landlord to settle a person closely connected with him to make him economically

.

independent so as to support himself and/or the

landlord. To discharge such obligation the landlord may require the tenancy premises and such requirement would be the requirement of the landlord. If the

requirement is of actual user of the premises by a person other than the landlord himself the Court shall with circumspection inquire: (i) whether the requirement of such person can be considered to be the requirement of the landlord, and (ii) whether there is a close inter-

relation or identity nexus between such person and the landlord so as to satisfy the requirement of the first query. Applying the abovesaid tests to the facts of the present case it is clear that the tenancy premises are

required for the office of the landlord's son who is a chartered accountant. It is the moral obligation of the

landlord to settle his son well in his life and to contribute his best to see him economically independent. The landlord is not going to let out the premises to his son and though the son would run his office in the premises

the possession would continue with the landlord and in a sense the actual occupation by the son would be the occupation by the landlord himself. It is the landlord who requires the premises for his son and in substance the

user would be by landlord for his son's office. The case squarely falls within the scope of Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of

the Act."

31. Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court

in Dwarkaprasad v. Niranjan and another, (2003) 4 SCC 549.

32. In Kailash Chand's case (supra), the Supreme Court,

reiterating its view, has explained expressions 'for his own use',

'his own occupation' and 'for occupation by family' and has

held that these phrases include requirements of member of

family of landlord or those dependent on him, observing as

under:

CR No.69 of 2022 ...17...

"24. The expression 'his own occupation' as occurring in sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of section (3) is not to be assigned a narrow meaning. It has to be read liberally and given a practical meaning. 'His own occupation' does not mean occupation by the landlord alone and as

.

an individual. The expressions "for his own use" and "for

occupation by himself" as occurring in two other Rent Control Acts, have come up for the consideration of this Court in Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal, (2002) 5

SCC 397 and Dwarkaprasad v. Nirnajan and Another, (2003) 4 SCC 549. It was held that the requirement of members of family of the landlord or of the one who is dependent on the landlord, is the landlord's own requirement. Regard will be had to the social or socio-

religious milieu and practices prevalent in a particular section of society or a particular region to which the landlord belongs, while interpreting such expressions. The requirement of the family members for residence is

certainly the requirement by the landlord for 'his own occupation'."

33. Following the aforesaid judgment, this High Court

has decided Civil Revision No.16 of 2014, titled as Jagat Ram

Chauhan v. Smt. Avinash Partap and another, reported in Latest

HLJ 2014(HP) 420 (supra); and Civil Revision No.41 of 2019,

tilted as Mandeep Singh v. Gian Chand, on 18.7.2018 (supra).

34. In view of aforesaid exposition of law, plea that

requirement for wife cannot be a ground for eviction on

bonafide requirement is not sustainable and is rejected

accordingly.

35. Plea of landlord that premises occupied by Tenant

is most suitable for his bonafide requirement as well as plea of

Tenant that landlord is having vacant floors/accommodation

and that during last 5 years landlord has rented out another

CR No.69 of 2022 ...18...

available premises to another Tenant, are to be adjudicated by

the Rent Controller on the basis of material placed before him

in the light of pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Meenal

.

Eknath Kashirsagar (Mrs) v. Traders & Agencies and another,

(1996) 5 SCC 344; Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta,

(1999) 6 SCC 222; Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery &

Co., (2000) 1 SCC 679; M.L. Prabhakar v. Rajiv Singal, (2001) 2

SCC 355; Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal, (2001) 5 SCC 705;

Sidhalingamma and another v. Mamtha Shenoy, (2001) 8 SCC

561; Savitri Sahay v. Sachidanand Prasad, (2002) 8 SCC 765;

and Akhileshwar Kumar and others v. Mustaqim and others,

(2003) 1 SCC 462, wherein it has been held that landlord is the

best judge of his requirement for residential or business

purpose and subjective choice of landlord shall be respected by

the Court without thrusting its own wisdom or Tenant's choice

upon the choice of landlord and suitability has to be seen from

convenience of landlord and his family members on the basis of

totality of circumstances including their profession, vocation,

style of living, habits and background, and choice of landlord to

choose either or any of two or more tenanted premises as well

as requirement of area or space, for bonafide requirement, is

not to be questioned by the tenant.

36. Perusal of present application and application filed

under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC at earlier point of time, clearly

CR No.69 of 2022 ...19...

depicts that both applications have been filed exactly on one

and same ground with similar averments in verbatim except

two new paras disclosing about filing of an application under

.

Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as well as CMPMO No. 290 of 2018.

Though it has been stated in para 5 of latter application, which

is in reference in present petition, that CMPMO No. 290 of 2018

was dismissed on the ground that provisions of CPC are not

applicable in rent cases, however, it is half truth as in para 7 of

judgment in CMPMO No. 290 of 2018 it has been categorically

held that grounds taken in application were not sufficient to

conclude that either the rent petition does not, at an incipient

stage, disclose any valid accruable cause(s) of action or it

infracts with provisions of the Rent Act and further that issues

raised in application were to be decided after adducing the

evidence by parties facilitating the Rent Controller to return

findings thereon and grounds, taken, were considered to be

pre-mature at that stage and, thus, application was also

dismissed for want of sufficient meritworthy ground warranting

the dismissal of main petition at an incipient stage. Therefore,

in view of verdict of Coordinate Bench, which has not been

further assailed, application in reference was not maintainable

at all, rather, it is an abuse of process of law for which tenant

deserves to be burdened with costs.

CR No.69 of 2022 ...20...

37. Therefore petition stands dismissed. However,

taking a lenient view, no cost is being imposed, considering

that petitioner was acting bonafide on ill advice.

.

Parties are permitted to use/produce downloaded

copy of this judgment from the Website of the High Court

before the authorities concerned and that said authorities shall

not insist for certified copy, but, if required, may verify passing

of the order from the Website of the High Court of otherwise.

    October 14, 2022
      (ms/sd)
                   r           to           ( Vivek Singh Thakur )
                                                      Judge