A single judge bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra of Uttarakhand HC has quashed the impugned order dated 05.09.2020 passed by Additional District Judge as the order failed to appreciate the fact that whether the suit can be maintainable in light of the pending SCC application.
Facts
The facts, that are not disputed in this case, are that petitioner happens to be a tenant of respondent. Respondent filed a SCC Suit before the Judge, Small Cause Court bearing no. 01 of 2015 while that application was pending before the competent Court he filed another application for release of property bearing P.A. No. 3 of 2017 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vikas Nagar, praying for release of the rented premises on the ground that he requires the said property for his own personal use and that property is in dilapidated, requires its demolition, and then reconstruction. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) being the Prescribed Authority under the aforesaid Act, dismissed the application.
The respondent preferred an appeal bearing Rent Control Appeal No. 3 of 2019 before the Additional District Judge, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun. As per the impugned judgment, the Appellate Authority allowed the said appeal and set aside the order passed by the Prescribed Authority and directed eviction of the petitioner by allowing the application for release filed by the respondent.
Observations
The court observed that the only question that arises for consideration, at present, is that whether during the pendency of the SCC Suit for eviction of the petitioner from the self-same property, the application for release under special Statue is maintainable. On this count, though several contentions have been raised but this Court is of the opinion that though the learned Additional District Judge, in impugned judgment at paragraph 36 has noted that one SCC suit is pending, but has not given any finding whether second application for the release for the self-same acquired property is maintainable or not.
Therefore, this court exercising Certiorari jurisdiction, allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter back to the Additional District Judge, Vikas Nagar, to reconsider the case and give specific findings regarding maintainability of the application for release in view of the pendency of earlier SCC Suit and impact of the pleadings raised thereon.
Decision
The present writ petition is allowed by exercising certiorari jurisdiction of the court and Impugned order dated 05.09.2020 passed by Additional District Judge, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun was quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Additional District Judge, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun for reconsideration of the appeal with the direction to dispose it within 3 months from the date of production of the certified order.
Case: Dr. Nardev Sharma vs Ravindra Kumar Jain
Citation: Writ Petition No. 2094 (MS) of 2020
Coram: Justice Sanjay Kumar Mishra
Date: 11.10.2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
