Shri Jugal Kishore Wasan Alias Babli vs Babu Lal Gupta & Others

SHARAD SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

The present Writ Petition has been preferred by the tenant challenging the judgments dated 07.12.2012 passed by the prescribed authority i.e.

learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dehradun in PA Case No. 55/2007 ‘Shri Babu Lal Gupta vs. Kishan Lal Wasan and others’, which stood

affirmed by the Appellate court in an Appeal preferred under Section 22 of the Act No. 13/1972 being Rent Control Appeal No. 187/2012. The said

Appeal stood dismissed by the judgment dated 18.01.2018 against which the present Writ Petition has been preferred. Thus the scrutiny is being

sought to a concurrent judgment concluded by finding of facts.

Though there are various factual aspects which could have been ventured into for deciding a lis, which was settled down by way of a concurrent

finding of facts recorded by the Courts below in a summary proceedings contemplated under Act No. 13/1972 and also keeping in mind the various

judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court with regards to the scope of the interference by the Writ Court against a concurrent findings of the facts.

This Court while proceeding with the matter for an adjudication on its merit, the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Piyush Garg based on the

instruction received by him from his client prays for that he is willing to vacate the premises subject to the condition that he is provided 2 ½ years

time to vacate the same.

This offer as extended by the learned counsel for the petitioner is disagreed by Mr. Nagesh Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord

on ground tenancy is now about 70 years old. But, looking to the fact that the PA Case No. 55/2007 itself was instituted and was decided ultimately by

the judgment dated 18.01.2018 by the Appellate Court, this Court is of the opinion that the time as sought for is too excessive and cannot be accepted.

It is also for the reason that according to the respondent he submits that the tenancy has now continued for last over seven decades, some reason only

be granted to vacate the tenement. Taking a holistic view, this Court feels that two years period is sufficient to be granted to the petitioner to vacate

the premises to which learned counsel

for the parties agrees.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed subject to the following directions:

(i)Â Â Â the petitioner would vacate the premises positively by 09.08.2020.

(ii)Â Â the petitioner would submit an undertaking by way of an affidavit before the prescribed authority giving an undertaking to vacate the premises

within two years i.e. by 09.08.2020. The said undertaking has to be given positively within a period of four weeks from today.

(iii)Â In an event if the undertaking is not given as directed above by the petitioner within the aforesaid period of four weeks, it would be open for the

respondent-landlord to get the impugned orders executed.

(iv)Â Â For the period of two years when the tenancy has been directed to be continued in pursuance to ten days orders passed by this Court the

petitioner would be liable to pay rent @ Rs. 3,000/- per month.

(v)Â Â Â The aforesaid rent would positively be remitted to the landlord by 10th of each month. In an event if the petitioner fails to deposit the

amount and commits a default in payment of the rent for any month hereinafter, the impugned orders would be executed against him even by use of

force.

(vi)Â Â During this period of two years the petitioner will not alter or change the nature of the property in any manner whatsoever nor will create any

sub-tenancy in any manner whatsoever. In an event of default of this condition, the decree would be put to execution.

Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. There would be no order as to cost.