Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/2573/2023 on 13 September, 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.2573 of 2023
With
IA/1/2023 (Stay Application)
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sagar Kothari, learned counsel for
the respondent.
The proceeding of Rent Control Case No.1
of 2022, stood instituted, at the behest of
respondent no.2-the landlord, in relation to
the tenement in question, which was in
occupation of the petitioner in the capacity of
being a tenant of the respondent/landlord.
The Release Application, preferred by the
respondent, was rejected by an order of
23.07.2022. The respondent - Landlord
preferred an appeal under Section 22 of the
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of
letting, Rent and Eviction) Act No.13 of 1972,
as applicable in the State of Uttarakhand (For
short, "Rent Control Act").
The said appeal, despite service of notice
on the petitioner, was not contested.
Consequently, the appeal was directed to be
proceeded exparte by an order of 18.01.2023
and, later on, it was allowed exparte by the
judgment of 22.06.2023, whereby the Release
Application, preferred by respondent-
Landlord, was allowed.
In all these proceedings, ever since
institution of the appeal, till the passing of the
judgment and filing of the Execution Petition
by way of Execution Petition No.2 of 2023, the
petitioner has admittedly not participated.
Though, he had filed a Recall Application,
which was numbered as Misc. Application in
Case No.28 of 2023, seeking recall of the order
passed by the Appellate Court on 22.06.2023
in the Rent Control Appeal No.11 of 2022 and
the same was objected to by the Landlord.
But, however, during the pendency of the
Recall Application, the petitioner-tenant has
given an undertaking in writing, that he would
be vacating the premises within 15 days. But,
he did not comply with the same, and rather
to the contrary, he had chosen to file this writ-
petition against the Appellate Court's order of
allowing the Release Application under
Section 21(1)(d) of the Rent Control Act,
despite the fact, that he had given an
assurance to vacate the same within 15 days.
After having heard the learned counsel
for the parties, this Court is of the view, that
since there was a satisfactory service of notice
effected upon the petitioner and he has opted
out to not contest the appellate proceedings
on merits, the judgment of 22.06.2023 could
not have been recalled by an order of Misc.
Case No.28 of 2023, and even otherwise also,
when the petitioner himself had filed an
application before the Court giving an
undertaking to vacate the premises within 15
days, the Recall Application itself was not
required to be considered on its own merits.
The petitioner, despite the written
undertaking given to vacate the premises
within 15 days, has not vacated the same.
Today, when the matter was taken up,
the learned counsel for the petitioner had
sought time to vacate the premises, but he
was not very sure as to what period he would
pray for, to vacate the premises in the absence
of his instruction. He has received the
instructions from the petitioner, who had
prayed for that he may be granted one year's
time to vacate the premises.
The said request made by the petitioner
to vacate the premises is being vehemently
opposed by the counsel for the Landlord-
respondent, on the ground, that since initially
he has sought time to vacate the premises
within 15 days, it would be too long a period
to be granted, which would be beyond the
undertaking given by him before the Appellate
Court.
But, still, taking a pragmatic view and, in
order to resolve the controversy finally for all
time to come, the petitioner is granted one
year's time from today to vacate the premises
and hand over its peaceful possession to the
respondent-Landlord, without creating any
encumbrances of any nature whatsoever and
he would adhere to the following conditions:-
1) That he would submit a written
undertaking within a period of three
weeks from today before the learned
Prescribed Authority, by way of an
affidavit to vacate the premises within
a period of one year from today.
2) The undertaking, thus to be given by
the petitioner, would contain a
condition that he would be remitting
the entire arrears of rent, as it has
been determined by the Appellate
Court and would continue to remit the
amount of monthly rent for this
extended period of one year of
occupancy by tenth day of each
month, as it has been granted by this
Court by today's order.
3) During this period, he would not
create any sub-tenancy or would not
change the nature of property, in any
manner, whatsoever.
4) In case, if any of the undertakings, as
it has been given above, is not
complied with, the Execution Petition,
as preferred by the respondent-
Landlord, would be given effect to
forthwith for seeking possession of the
tenement in question, which had been
a subject matter of the appeal
preferred by the respondent, being
Rent Control Appeal No.11 of 2022.
Subject to the above exceptions, the writ-
petition stands dismissed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
13.09.2023
Sukhbant
