Uttarakhand High Court
Mayank Gupta & Others ... vs Sri Vipin Kumar Agarwal on 3 March, 2021
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No.281 of 2021 (M/S)
Mayank Gupta & others ...Petitioners
Vs.
Sri Vipin Kumar Agarwal ...Respondent
Advocate : Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Sagar Kothari, Advocate for the respondent.
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
The proceedings by way of P.A. Case No.07 of 2017
Vipin Kumar Agarwal vs. Smt. Suman Gupta and others, was
instituted on 29.08.2017, before the court of Prescribed
Authority, Rishikesh, District Dehradun; by invoking the
provisions contained under Section 21(1)(a) of Act No.13 of
1972, for the purposes of release of the tenement in question,
which was more appropriately described at the foot of the plaint,
constituting to be a shop, bearing Municipal No.15/2001 Old
Lajpat Rai Marg, Tehsil Rishikesh, District Dehradun, the
Chauddhi of which was shown in detail in the description of the
property as was given therein in the release application. The
release as was expressed by the landlord/applicant, was on the
premises that he wanted the release of the shop in question, to
meet the bonafide need of his wife for whom he wanted the
tenement, in order to enable her to start her independent business
on a wider and larger scale, as she was already dealing in
business of dry fruits and gift items business, from the residence
itself.
2. Apart from that there are various other contentions,
which had been raised in the release application and on exchange
of pleadings, the findings which has been recorded therein, it
shows that the petitioners/tenants have alternative
accommodation, under their ownership though it being a fact,
which has been attempted to be denied by the tenant on the
pretext, that the landlord/respondent, had failed to lead any
evidence to the contrary to establish that the availability of
alternative accommodation with the petitioner, as pleaded, by the
respondent/landlord or established by the evidence on record and
hence, he submits that the finding, which had been recorded to
the said effect happens to be contrary to the evidence on record,
there is no additional accommodation, which is available to the
petitioner.
3. Be that as it may.
4. It is a fact, which is borne out from the record that the
proceedings stood culminated by the orders of the prescribed
authority, as was rendered on 16.11.2019, as was passed by the
said court in P.A. Case No.07 of 2017, which was later on stood
affirmed by the appellate court by the judgment dated
21.01.2021; by the court of IInd Additional District Judge,
Dehradun in Rent Control Appeal No.37 of 2019, whereby the
appeal, which was preferred by the petitioner/tenant was
dismissed. Hence, the present writ petition, in which initially,
there was an interim status quo order granted by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court.
5. When the matter, was taken up on the previous dates,
the petitioner's counsel, was directed to complete his instructions
since the finding of fact being concurrent in nature, he was given
liberty to complete the instructions from his client, with regard to
time period which he want to solicit and pray for, for the
purposes of vacating the premises.
6. In compliance thereto, the petitioner is present in
person, before this Court in today's proceedings, in the presence
of whom the counsel for the petitioner had sought two years time
to vacate the premises. The said prayer as had been made by the
counsel for the petitioner, looking to the length of tenancy and
considering the fact that the release itself was instituted in the
year 2017, coupled with the fact that the finding, which has been
recorded by the learned appellate court of an availability of an
alternative accommodation, which is under the title of the
petitioner/tenant themselves, this Court is of the view that the
said aforesaid, period of two years, as prayed for is too long a
period to be granted.
7. At this stage, the Court extended the proposal, that in
case if, he intends to vacate the premises within a period of one
and half year from today, the Court may accommodate his
request. The counsel for the petitioner consulted his client in the
Court itself, who was present in the proceedings and has extended
his consent to vacate the premises within a period of one and half
years. The said prayer is not being seriously opposed by the
counsel for the respondent and looking to the overall scenario and
particularly, the fact that the tenancy happens to be a long drawn
tenancy ever since the year 1977, this Court is inclined to grant
one and half years time to the petitioners/tenant to vacate the
premises subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner/tenant would by way of an affidavit
submit, an undertaking before the court of learned
Prescribed Authority within three weeks, giving an
undertaking to vacate the premises and handover the
peaceful and vacant possession of the disputed tenement to
the respondent/landlord, within a period of one and half
year from today. Subject to furnishing the said undertaking
by way of an affidavit the following conditions would
follow:-
(ii) The petitioners would ensure to remit the rent as was
being determined and paid by him in the proceedings,
which were held under Section 30, which was registered as
Case No.29 of 2004 and would ensure the remittance of
rent by 10th of each month. The rent would be enhanced to
be paid at the rate of Rs.150/- per month.
(iii) During this period of extended occupancy, the
petitioner/tenant would not alter or change the nature of the
tenement in question in any manner whatsoever, except
with the prior written consent from respondent/landlord.
(iv) During this period, the petitioner undertakes that he
would not be creating any sub-tenancy and would
exclusively hand over the vacant possession to the
respondent/landlord.
(v) It is made clear that in an event of failure to comply
with any of the conditions, as imposed above it will be
open for the respondent/landlord to get the judgments
executed, in terms of the provisions contained under Act
No.13 of 1972.
8. Subject to the above liberty, the writ petition stands
dismissed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
03.03.2021
Arti/
