Court No. - 36
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 911 of 2019 Petitioner :- Anant Ram Respondent :- Sita Ram And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shreya Gupta,Ravi Anand Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- Rama Pati Tripathi
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Vakalatnama filed by Sri Anand Mohan Pandey on behalf of respondent no.1 is taken on record.
The present petition is directed against the orders passed by the Rent Control Authorities under Section 12(3) of U.P. Rent Control Act 13 of 1972 and the revisional order under Section 16 to that Act, 1972. The suit property was declared vacant by virtue of section 12 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 noticing the fact that three heirs of the original tenant namely Jaganath had acquired their independent houses in the same Municipal area.
As to the possession of those houses by two other brothers of the petitioner, i.e. sons of the original tenant, no objection has been taken by the petitioner herein.
Only submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Revisional Court has not given any reason to record that the petitioner, one of the sons of the original tenant, had also acquired an independent house, though there was a categorical denial of petitioner of the said fact.
Learned counsel for the respondent/landlord, however, invited attention of the Court to the contents of paragraph '10' of the Revisional Order dated 1.1.2019, which categorically records that the petitioner herein had been alloted a House no.1351 under Kashi Ram Awas Yojna and possession thereof had been delivered to him on 6.9.2014.
On a pointed query made by the Court as to the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner to this categorical assertion of the opposite party/respondent, no affidavit of the petitioner has been placed before the Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to dispute the said finding returned by the revisional court.
For the aforesaid, no interference can be made.
No infirmity is found.
The present petition is found devoid of merits and hence dismissed.
Before parting with the judgment, this Court finds that the petitioner has acquired the house in dispute for a long time and needs some time to move in his own house. A liberty is, therefore, granted to the petitioner to vacate the house in question and to hand over the peaceful possession of the house- in-question to the respondent-landlord on or before 1.9.2019, subject to furnishing undertaking before the court concerned within a period of three weeks from today along with certified copy of this order.
In case of default, on the part of petitioner to furnish such an undertaking or vacate the house in question within the time given above, the protection granted hereinabove shall stand automatically revoked.
Order Date :- 25.2.2019 Harshita