Hari Krishna Gupta vs Rent Control And Eviction Officer And ... on 7 October, 2017

[Cites 0, Cited by 61]

Uttarakhand High Court

Hari Krishna Gupta vs Rent Control And Eviction Officer And ... on 7 October, 2017

This is a tenant petition assailing the order dated 27th March, 2008, passed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer in Case No. 21 of 2005, under Section 12 read with Section 34 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, whereby, a vacancy has been declared against the tenant, in question.

The brief facts of the case are that the present respondents, who are the landlord, had let out the accommodation, which happens to be a residential accommodation, to the petitioner as a tenant.

The newly impleaded respondents had filed an application for declaration of vacancy on the pretext that the tenant has purchased a flat and, thus, he has got another accommodation and has vacated the premises. Thus, there had occurred a vacancy. On the application for declaration of vacancy, a report was called upon by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer and a report was submitted on 28th September, 2005, in which, it has been reported that the 2 petitioner tenant still continues to occupy the premises. On the basis of the report by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, the notices were issued under Rule 8, and on issuance of the notices, the landlord filed an application dated 10th May, 2007, for bringing certain evidence on record which was accepted.

The petitioner on 4th October, 2007, filed an application before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer praying for that the matter may be adjourned and he may be granted time to file the evidence in rebuttal to the evidence produced by the landlord. This application of the petitioner was rejected and, consequently, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer fixed 11th October, 2007, for argument. But, the case was not heard on the said date and 25th October, 2007, was fixed for argument on the declaration of vacancy.

The petitioner filed an application on 25th October, 2007 alongwith it, he also filed the evidence in rebuttal to the evidence produced by the landlord by his application 10th May, 2007. Yet again, the case was adjourned on 25 th October, 2007, and was fixed on 1st November, 2007, but, no orders have been passed on the petitioner's application dated 25th October, 2007. He contends that during the intervening period, the matter could not be taken up on account of strike by the Advocates and on certain occasions because of the fact that the Presiding Officer was on leave due to administrative work. Ultimately, the application for declaration of vacancy filed under Section 12 was decided by the impugned order dated 27th March, 2008.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are three apparent anomalies in the order impugned, namely:-

(1) That prior to passing of the order declaring the vacancy, the Court has not passed any order on his application dated 25th October, 2007 either accepting his evidence on record or rejecting it.

(2) He submits that the Court has not considered the impact of the report submitted on 28th September, 2005 as to whether at all there had occurred vacancy or not.


     (3)         He submits that the order which has been
                 passed     is   cryptic,   non-speaking     and

without considering the rival contentions raised by the parties.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the order impugned dated 27th March, 2008, this Court is in acceptance with the argument extended by the learned counsel for the petitioner pertaining to the apparent anomalies which have been committed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by passing a final order without considering the pending application or passing an order on the same and also that no finding has been recorded on the effect of the sale deed as well as the effect the report submitting during the pendency of the proceeding under Section 12.

On these counts, itself, since there happen to be a procedural flaw while deciding the application under 4 Section 12, I quash the order dated 27th March, 2008, and remit the matter back to the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to decide the proceedings afresh, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned including the prospective allottees within a period of three months from today.

The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 07.10.2017 Shiv 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Uttarakhand High Court