Digvijay Singh Kandari & Others vs Pauli Messy And Others

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

(Via Video Conferencing)

Since the controversy involved in the present writ petitions is identical, as such, for the purposes of convenience, they are being decided together by

this common judgement.

The petitioner in the Writ Petition being Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1221 of 2021 is a landlord. A proceeding under Section 12 of Act No. 13 of

1972, for declaration of vacancy under the Act No. 13 of 1972, was later followed by release of the accommodation, which was the subject matter of

Case No. 27 of 2011, Digvijay Singh and others Vs. Pauly Messy, which was decided on 08.10.2012, and the release order was made on

21.01.2014, so far as it relates to Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1221 of 2021.

In the connected writ petition, being Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1226 of 2021, the petitioner, who is a landlord, had filed the Case No. 28 of 2011,

Digvijay Singh Kandari Vs. Bhagwan Singh Rawa,t yet again being the proceedings, under Sections 12 and 16 of Act No. 13 of 1972, for

declaration of vacancy and the ultimate release, which has been identically decided by the Court, by an order dated 08.10.2012 and 21.01.2014

respectively concurrently in favour of the landlord/petitioner, releasing the accommodation under Section 16 of the Act No. 13 of 1972.

Aggrieved against the aforesaid orders of declaration of vacancy and release of the accommodation in favour of the landlord/petitioner, the statute

provides a Revision under Section 18 of Act No. 13 of 1972. The respondents, in these two writ petitions had preferred a Rent Control Revision No.

11 of 2018, Pauli Messy and others Vs. Digvija Singh Kandari, so far it relates to Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1221 of 2021, and Rent Control Revision

No. 12 of 2018, Archana and others Vs. Digvija Singh Kandari, so far it relates to Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1226 of 2021.

The petitioner has come up in the writ petition, seeking a prayer that an appropriate direction may be issued to the Court of 3 rd Additional District

Judge, Dehradun, before whom the aforesaid two Rent Control Revisions, under Section 18 of the Act No. 13 of 1972, are presently pending

consideration, that it may be directed to be decided expeditiously.

Considering the grounds taken by the petitioner, and also considering the fact that the case itself is pending consideration for the release of the

accommodation already declared vacant, ever since 2011, these writ petitions are being disposed of with a request to the Court of learned Court of 3rd

Additional District Judge, Dehradun, to decide the aforesaid two Revisions under Section 18 of the Act, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than

four months from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgement.

However, it is made clear that this direction issued to the Revisional Court, to decide the Revisions, within the aforesaid time period, would

obviously be exclusive of the period, for which the proceedings of the Court are installed, on account of any executive/administrative directions, if any,

which has been issued or may be issued by the High Court due to the prevalent pandemic situation.

Subject to aforesaid observations, the writ petitions stand disposed of.

Let a copy of this judgment be placed in the order sheet of the connected writ petition.