Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/2359/2007 on 8 June, 2023
Office Notes,
reports, orders
SL. or proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPMS No.2359 of 2007
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Kshitij Sah, learned counsel holding
brief of Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel
for the petitioner.
Mr. Devesh Ghildiyal, learned Brief Holder
for the State.
Mr. Nagesh Aggarwal, learned counsel for
respondent no.3.
The petitioner, who is a tenant, has put a
challenge to the concurrent judgment which
was rendered in a proceeding under Section
21(1) (a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. The relief
clause is extracted hereunder:-
"(a) To quash the impugned order dated
22-10-2007 passed by the District Judge,
Haridwar/respondent no.1 in Rent Control
Appeal No.138/2005, "Smt. Ram Pyari vs.
Shashi Kant Sikhola" and order dated 30-09-
2005 passed by the Prescribed Authority/ Civil
Judge (Junior Division), Haridwar/ respondent
no.2 herein in P.A. Case No.8/2004 "Shashi
Kant Sikhola vs. Smt. Ram Pyari".
The learned counsel for the petitioner
makes a statement, without venturing to
address the writ-petition on merits that he may
granted time to vacate the premises i.e. the
disputed tenement in question.
Looking to the age of the proceedings,
which stood instituted as back as in 2004 and
that too since being summary proceedings
under law, which ought to have been reasonably
decided in accordance with the Rule 15(3) of the
Act.
The petitioner has already enjoyed
sufficient time of occupancy of the tenement in
question, after the institution of proceedings
under Section 21(1) (a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of
1972.
This Court is of the view that one and half
years as prayed for to vacate the premises,
would be too long a period to be granted. Hence,
the petitioner is directed to vacate the premises
and handover its vacant and peaceful
possession, back to the respondent/landlord
within a period of one year from today, subject
to the compliance of the following conditions:-
1) The petitioner would submit an
undertaking by way of an affidavit before
the learned Prescribed Authority within a
period of two weeks from today giving an
unconditional undertaking to vacate the
premises within a period of one year from
today.
2) The petitioner undertakes, that during this
extended period of occupancy he would be
regularly remitting the rent to the
respondent/landlord by the 10th day of
each month. Default in remittance of rent
will automatically amount to cancellation
of the extension of occupancy granted to
the petitioner by extending the time of
occupancy.
3) During this period the petitioner-tenant
will not alter or change the nature of the
tenement in question in any manner
whatsoever except with a prior written
consent from the landlord.
4) The tenant/petitioner contends that during
this period of extended occupancy he will
not create any sub-tenancy.
5) He further undertakes, that if any of the
condition of the tenancy is not complied
with by him it will be open for the landlord
to forthwith occupy the premises with the
assistance of the orders to be passed by the
Prescribed Authority.
Subject to the aforesaid, the writ-petition
stands dismissed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
08.06.2023
Sukhbant
