Smt. Kamla Devi & Others ... vs Shri Jagdish Kumar on 16 December, 2025

2025:UHC:11215

Judgement Reserved on: 28.10.2025
Judgement Delivered on: 16.12.2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 469 of 2022
Smt. Kamla Devi & others ......Petitioners

Versus

Shri Jagdish Kumar .....Respondent

Presence:

Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the Petitioners.
Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, learned counsel for the Respondent.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

The Petitioners have invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the
judgment dated 07.06.2019 delivered by the Prescribed Authority in P.A.
Case No. 36 of 2014 and the judgment dated 09.11.2021 rendered by the
learned District Judge, Dehradun, in Rent Control Appeal No. 38 of 2019. By
both these concurrent judgments, the release application filed by the
Respondent-landlord under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972
has been allowed, and the Petitioners, as tenants, have been directed to vacate
the premises. The Petitioners seek interference with both findings and pray
that this Court quash the impugned orders.

2. The dispute pertains to a portion of the property known as
"Ganges View" situated in Landour Cantt., Mussoorie. The premises had
been let out several decades earlier to the husband of Petitioner No. 1. Upon
his demise, the tenancy devolved upon the Petitioners. The Respondent
purchased the property in the year 2000 and became the landlord. As per the
record, the relationship of landlord and tenant is not in dispute.

1
WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 469 of 2022-----Smt. Kamla Devi & others vs Shri Jagdish Kumar

Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11215

3. The parties have had an extended history of rent-related
communications, including certain notices exchanged in the years 2008 and
2014, which the Petitioners rely upon in support of their submissions
regarding waiver and non-compliance with statutory provisions.
4. The Respondent approached the Prescribed Authority in 2014 by
filing a release application, asserting that the accommodation in his
possession was insufficient and that he bona fide required the tenanted
portion of the premises for his residential use.

5. The Prescribed Authority, after considering the matter in detail,
rejected the objections raised by the Petitioners. The Authority found that the
Respondent had purchased the property in the year 2000 and that the release
application was filed in 2014, well beyond the three-year embargo imposed
by the first proviso to Section 21(1). It held that once the statutory period has
expired, the requirement of serving a six-month notice does not survive.

6. The Prescribed Authority also recorded that the accommodation
available with the Respondent is limited and insufficient and that the
Respondent's requirement is genuine. The Authority was not persuaded by
the Petitioners' claim of hardship and concluded that the hardship to the
Respondent is greater.

7. On appeal, the District Judge, Dehradun, undertook a re-appraisal
of the entire material. The Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the
Prescribed Authority on every aspect. The Appellate Court held that the
release application was maintainable in law. It also held that the Respondent's
need is bona fide, noting that he is of advanced age, has insufficient space in
his possession, and that the Petitioners' assertions of hardship are
unsupported by material evidence. The Appellate Court observed that the

2
WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 469 of 2022-----Smt. Kamla Devi & others vs Shri Jagdish Kumar

Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11215

Petitioners' plea regarding the mandatory notice under the proviso was based
on a misreading of the statutory scheme.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

9. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, while reiterating the grounds
taken in the writ petition, has submitted that both courts below failed to
appreciate the import of the first proviso to Section 21(1), which mandates
that a subsequent purchaser cannot file a release application before the expiry
of three years of purchase and, even thereafter, cannot initiate such
proceedings without serving a prior six-month notice upon the sitting tenant.

10. It was argued that the absence of such notice constitutes a
jurisdictional defect which vitiates the entire proceedings. It was further
submitted that although the Respondent had issued a notice of termination in
the year 2008, the subsequent acceptance of rent amounted to a waiver not
only of that notice but also of any right to invoke Section 21 sub-section 1 of
the Act. It was urged that the long-standing occupation of the Petitioners,
their financial vulnerability, and the absence of any alternative
accommodation have not been duly appreciated.

11. Learned Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, has
submitted that both courts below have returned concurrent findings on all
material aspects, including bona fide need and comparative hardship, and that
such findings are based on the appreciation of evidence which cannot be
interfered with in supervisory jurisdiction.

12. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the
Respondent that the proviso to Section 21(1) applies only during the initial
three-year bar following the purchase and that after expiry of that period, the

3
WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 469 of 2022-----Smt. Kamla Devi & others vs Shri Jagdish Kumar

Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11215

landlord is free to file a release application without the requirement of a six-
month notice.

13. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has urged that the
Petitioners have not shown any perversity or illegality in the impugned
findings and that the writ petition is a mere attempt to re-agitate factual
disputes already adjudicated upon.

14. Upon considering the rival submissions and examining the
record, this Court finds that the core issue raised by the Petitioners revolves
around the interpretation and applicability of the first proviso to Section
21(1). The undisputed factual position is that the Respondent purchased the
property in 2000 and filed the release application in 2014. The embargo
imposed by the proviso extends only for three years. Once that period lapses,
the subsequent purchaser becomes entitled to invoke Section 21(1)(a) without
the necessity of a prior notice.

15. The Petitioners have failed to point out any statutory provision or
precedent to the contrary. The argument built on the notice issued in 2008 and
the subsequent acceptance of rent is also without substance, as proceedings
under Section 21(1)(a) are entirely independent of any earlier notices of
termination or disputes relating to rent. These proceedings rest solely upon
the landlord's bona fide requirement.

16. Both courts below have assessed the bona fide need of the
Respondent in the context of the nature of the premises, the age and
circumstances of the Respondent, and the accommodation available to him.
The guilt or innocence of one party is not the issue; the statute requires a
balancing of needs supported by evidence.

4
WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 469 of 2022-----Smt. Kamla Devi & others vs Shri Jagdish Kumar

Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11215

17. The Respondent's need has been found genuine, consistent, and
supported by material on record. The Petitioners have not demonstrated any
malafide intention on the part of the landlord. The question of comparative
hardship has also been addressed concurrently in favour of the Respondent.
The Petitioners' assertion of being financially incapable and having no
alternative accommodation has not been substantiated by any documentary
material, whereas the hardship to the Respondent in not being able to use his
own premises is evident.

18. In proceedings under Article 227, this Court does not re-
appreciate evidence or sit in appeal over concurrent findings of fact. The
jurisdiction is supervisory and intended to correct jurisdictional errors,
perversity, or manifest injustice. None of these grounds are made out in the
present case. Both courts below have rendered their findings upon a detailed
appreciation of the pleadings and evidence. This Court finds no perversity,
arbitrariness, or misdirection calling for interference.
19. The Petitioners have essentially sought a re-evaluation of factual
findings which is impermissible. The argument relating to statutory notice,
upon which much emphasis has been laid, stands concluded against the
Petitioners upon a correct reading of the statutory scheme. The findings
regarding bona fide need and hardship are concurrent and based on sound
reasoning.
20. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the writ petition lacks merit. The concurrent findings
of the courts below warrant no interference.
ORDER

Accordingly, no ground for interference is made out, and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 469 of 2022-----Smt. Kamla Devi & others vs Shri Jagdish Kumar

Ashish Naithani J.

2025:UHC:11215

For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.

No order as to costs.

Ashish Naithani, J.

SHIKSHA Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA

SB DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c1 2f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001,

BINJOLA st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED 00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2025.12.16 13:02:30 +05'30'

WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 469 of 2022-----Smt. Kamla Devi & others vs Shri Jagdish Kumar

Ashish Naithani J.