Uttarakhand High Court
Digvijay Singh Kandari vs Pauli Messy And Others on 30 June, 2021
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1221 of 2021
Digvijay Singh Kandari ... Petitioner
Vs.
Pauli Messy and others ... Respondents
And
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1226 of 2021
Digvijay Singh Kandari ... Petitioner
Vs.
Archana and others ... Respondents
Advocate: Mr. Nitin Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
(Via Video Conferencing)
Since the controversy involved in the present writ petitions
is identical, as such, for the purposes of convenience, they are
being decided together by this common judgement.
2. The petitioner in the Writ Petition being Writ Petition
(S/S) No. 1221 of 2021 is a landlord. A proceeding under Section
12 of Act No. 13 of 1972, for declaration of vacancy under the
Act No. 13 of 1972, was later followed by release of the
accommodation, which was the subject matter of Case No. 27 of
2011, Digvijay Singh and others Vs. Pauly Messy, which was
decided on 08.10.2012, and the release order was made on
21.01.2014, so far as it relates to Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1221 of
2021.
3. In the connected writ petition, being Writ Petition (M/S)
No. 1226 of 2021, the petitioner, who is a landlord, had filed the
Case No. 28 of 2011, Digvijay Singh Kandari Vs. Bhagwan Singh
Rawat, yet again being the proceedings, under Sections 12 and 16
of Act No. 13 of 1972, for declaration of vacancy and the
ultimate release, which has been identically decided by the Court,
by an order dated 08.10.2012 and 21.01.2014 respectively
concurrently in favour of the landlord/petitioner, releasing the
accommodation under Section 16 of the Act No. 13 of 1972.
4. Aggrieved against the aforesaid orders of declaration of
vacancy and release of the accommodation in favour of the
landlord/petitioner, the statute provides a Revision under Section
18 of Act No. 13 of 1972. The respondents, in these two writ
petitions had preferred a Rent Control Revision No. 11 of 2018,
Pauli Messy and others Vs. Digvija Singh Kandari, so far it
relates to Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1221 of 2021, and Rent
Control Revision No. 12 of 2018, Archana and others Vs. Digvija
Singh Kandari, so far it relates to Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1226
of 2021.
5. The petitioner has come up in the writ petition, seeking a
prayer that an appropriate direction may be issued to the Court of
3rd Additional District Judge, Dehradun, before whom the
aforesaid two Rent Control Revisions, under Section 18 of the
Act No. 13 of 1972, are presently pending consideration, that it
may be directed to be decided expeditiously.
6. Considering the grounds taken by the petitioner, and also
considering the fact that the case itself is pending consideration
for the release of the accommodation already declared vacant,
ever since 2011, these writ petitions are being disposed of with a
request to the Court of learned Court of 3rd Additional District
Judge, Dehradun, to decide the aforesaid two Revisions under
Section 18 of the Act, as expeditiously as possible, but not later
than four months from the date of production of the certified
copy of this judgement.
7. However, it is made clear that this direction issued to the
Revisional Court, to decide the Revisions, within the aforesaid
time period, would obviously be exclusive of the period, for
which the proceedings of the Court are installed, on account of
any executive/administrative directions, if any, which has been
issued or may be issued by the High Court due to the prevalent
pandemic situation.
8. Subject to aforesaid observations, the writ petitions stand
disposed of.
9. Let a copy of this judgment be placed in the order sheet of
the connected writ petition.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
30.06.2021
Mahinder/
