Uttarakhand High Court
Raj Kumar Grover vs Sachin Mehrotra on 3 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1160 of 2019
Raj Kumar Grover .......Petitioner
Vs.
Sachin Mehrotra .....Respondent
Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sarvesh Agarwal, Advocate, for the respondent.
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J (Oral)
The petitioner is a tenant and is facing the judgment of
eviction/release, as it has been rendered concurrently by both the
Courts below in the proceedings which were held under Section 21 (1)
(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and
Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short "Act No.13 of 1972") being judgment
dated 19.01.2019, which has been rendered by the court of Additional
District Judge 1st, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Rent
Control Appeal No.07 of 2017 "Raj Kumar Grover Vs. Sachin
Mehrotra".
2. As a consequence thereto, the appeal which was
preferred by the petitioner/tenant under Section 22 of the Act No.13 of
1972, stood rejected. Resulting into an affirmation of the judgment
dated 24.08.2017, which was rendered by the learned Prescribed
Authority, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in Rent Control
Case No.02 of 2016 "Sachin Mehrotra Vs. Raj Kumar Grover". As a
consequence to the judgments, which are under challenged, the
tenement shop which admittedly was under the tenancy of the
petitioner, was sought to be vacated in order to met the personal
requirements of the landlord/respondent, who wanted to open his own
medical shop for dealing, with the wholesale business, in which he
has been engaged for quite some time, and for which he needed the
disputed accommodation in question. The respondent/landlord, also
took a ground that his need happens to be a more exigent, as
compared to that of the tenant/petitioner, for the reason being that at
the time of the release itself, the landlord/respondent himself, was
forced to carry out his business from the other tenented
accommodation, despite the fact that he was having his own shop
under his ownership, which was let out to the petitioner, for which the
release application was filed.
3. There had been various rival contentions, which had been
raised before the learned trial court, but ultimately both the Courts
below after appreciating the respective case, have concurrently
allowed the release application holding thereof that the
landlord/respondent who has got a shop under his ownership, cannot
be compelled to continue, to conduct his business from the tenant's
accommodation, and since he wants to conduct his business from his
own shop the bonafide need obviously had been rightly determined in
his favour, by both the courts below.
4. Be that as it may, when the writ petition was instituted,
the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide its interim order dated
06.05.2019, while enhancing the rent to be remitted to the tune of
Rs.2,000/- per month had granted an interim protection to the
petitioner, whereby, the execution of the impugned orders under
challenged were kept in abeyance.
5. Thereafter on various occasions, the matter was taken up
and ultimately this Court passed an order on 22.02.2021, whereby, the
learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to complete his
instructions from the petitioner/tenant, with regards to the time period
which he wants to avail for the purpose of vacating the tenement shop
in question.
6. When the proceedings of the writ petition revived today,
before arguing on merits of the matter the learned counsel for the
petitioner had made a statement at the bar that he may be granted
three years' time to vacate the disputed premises in question,
considering the age of the litigation, particularly, when the release
application itself was instituted in the year 2016 and that too when the
petition has been concurrently decided against the petitioner holding
all the facets under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act No.13 of 1972, in
favour of the landlord/respondents.
7. I am of the view that the said period of 3 years to vacate
the shop, as prayed for three years, is on the very higher side because
it would be rather barging into and over the rights of the
landlord/respondent in utilizing its own accommodation, for
conducting his business from his shop.
8. Apart from it, the time period prayed for was also
strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent
Mr. Sarvesh Aggarwal, who submitted that 3 years period as prayed
for, it is too long period as per the instructions which has been
received by him from the landlord/respondent. The landlord was
willing to give one year time to the petitioner in order to enable the
petitioner to vacate the premises.
9. Considering the overall facts and the circumstances of
the case, under which the release application has been considered by
the court below, which was later also affirmed in the appeal and the
concurrent findings of facts recorded and considering the request
made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is inclined to
grant one and a half year's time to the petitioner/tenant to vacate the
premises in question and to hand-over the vacant and peaceful
possession to the respondent/landlord, subject to the following
conditions:-
(i) The petitioner/tenant would submit an undertaking, by way
of an affidavit, which is directed to be filed before the Court of
Prescribed Authority, Kashipur, District Udham Singh
Nagar, giving the undertaking to vacate the premises in
question within a period of one and a half year from today.
(ii) During this period of extended occupancy in pursuance to
the time granted by this Court, the petitioner would continue to
remit the enhance rent of Rs.2,000/- per month, as had been
directed by the interim order dated 06.05.2019, under the same
terms and conditions, as provided therein in the order dated
06.05.2019.
(iii) The petitioner during this period of one and a half year,
will not make any alteration or changes in the nature of the
property in any manner whatsoever, except without a prior
written consent being taken from the respondent/landlord.
(iv) During this period of extended occupancy, the petitioner
would not sub-let the tenement to any other tenant over the
premises in question and would hand-over the possession, as
provided under clause (1).
(v) In case, if any of the conditions, as given herein above is not
complied with by the petitioner, it would be exclusively open
for the respondent/landlord, to file an appropriate execution
proceedings for executing the impugned orders, which are
under challenged in the present writ petition.
10. After passing of the order, the learned counsel for the
petitioner/tenant, had apprehended that the remittance of rent as
directed by the interim order whenever he had attempted to pay the
rent to the respondent/landlord it was declined to be received. Hence
in that eventuality, he may face the consequence of eviction during
this period of occupancy as directed by this Court in order to tied-
away such anticipated contingences.
11. The petitioner/tenant is directed to deposit the rent before
the learned Prescribed Authority, and it would be open for the
landlord/respondent to receive/withdraw the same from the court
itself.
12. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands
disposed of accordingly.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
03.03.2021
NR/
