AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S. Verma, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought following reliefs:
A. To issue an order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order passed by Vice Chairman, Mussoorie, Dehradun Development Authority, 12 Pritam Road, Dehradun, District Dehradun on dated 17.07.2010.
B. To issue an order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order passed by Chairman, Mussorrie, Dehradun Development Authority, 12 Pritam Road, Dehradun, District Dehradun on dated 18.08.2010.
C. To issue an order or direction in the nature of mandamus for commanding the respondents to forthwith remove seal from the petitioner''s shop and allow them to function there without there being any interference by the respondents.
D. To issue any other, order or direction, which this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
E. Award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner.
Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is tenant of the shop, situated at 52-A, Rajpur Road, Dehradun, since 1985. The shop in question falls within the purview of U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting and Eviction Act, 1972. The said premises was owned by Dr. Jwala Prasad to whom the petitioner used to pay regular rent. Thereafter, the premises was owned by Shri Avadesh Chaudhary. Letter of change of ownership was issued by Shri Aditya Prasad, Son of Shri Jwala Prasad. Thereafter, the shop in question was sold to respondents No. 8 to 10. Further another letter was issued to the petitioner for payment of rent to Mrs. Manjeet Kaur, wife of Surender Singh.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the shop in question was constructed in the year 1982 by the then landlords after getting map sanctioned from the prescribed authority whereafter Mussorrie Dehradun Development Authority, came into existence in the year 1985. The present landlord had given an undertaking to the M.D.D.A. to demolish the shop in question without the petitioner''s consent. It is further contended that proceedings for eviction of the petitioner have not been taken in accordance with law, as provided in U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting and Eviction Act, 1972.
Vide order dated 17.07.2010, M.D.D.A. passed an order to seal the premises, whereby the petitioner as well as the landlord preferred different appeals before the Commissioner and their cases were remanded back to the Vice Chancellor, M.D.D.A. to decide the same afresh after hearing the parties. Vide order dated 16.08.2010, M.D.D.A. removed the seal of the property in question of the landlords partly and granted specific period to vacate the second floor of their premises. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for reopening of the seal from the premises in question but the same is still pending for disposal.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, the writ petition is disposed of finally directing respondent No. 2 to decide the application, moved by the petitioner for reopening of the seal from the premises in question, which is under the tenancy of the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of certified copy of this order, considering the fact that the petitioner is a doctor by profession and she is in possession of the shop since 1985. Considering the above fact, respondent No. 2 has allowed the landlords to function in some portion of the premises in question.