Court No. - 26
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3850 of 2018 Petitioner :- Baldev Raj Ahuja Respondent :- Prescribed Authority/Judge Small Causes Court Moradabad And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kshitij Shailendra Counsel for Respondent :- Rajeev Trivedi and Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4110 of 2018 Petitioner :- Smt. Jyoti Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- Baldev Raj Ahuja Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeev Trivedi Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Vakalatnama has been filed by Sri Kshitij Shailendra which is taken on record.
These two petitions i.e. Writ Petition No. 3850 of 2018 and Writ Petition No. 4110 of 2018 have been filed challenging the order dated 28.4.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Moradabad in Rent Control Appeal No. 8 of 2016 (Baldev Raj Ahuja Vs. Jyoti Singh & others).
Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioner / tenant has argued that it has been found by the Appellate Court that not only before the Release Application was filed by the landlord, but thereafter during pendency of the Release Application, several shops became vacant and the landlords came into possession thereof and then either sold them off to other person or rented them out on lease.
It has been found by the learned Appellate Court also after considering all evidence on record that the applicants / landlords have several shops in their possession still which are lying vacant and in which they can conduct their business and their need as depicted in the Release Application is neither bonafide nor genuine and pressing.
Yet by the Appellate order in the operative portion, a direction has been issued for the tenant to vacate the premises in question with an observation that the landlords shall offer either of the two vacant shops as mentioned in the operative portion to the tenant as alternative accommodation. One of the shops is situated in the same premises and the same is not vacant according to landlords and the other shops is situated on Prasadi Lal Road which is a different market.
Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioner / tenant has therefore prayed for setting aside the order impugned passed by the Appellate Court.
Learned counsel for the applicants / landlords on the other hand has also challenged the order passed by the Appellate Court on the ground that when the Prescribed Authority had thrashed out all evidence and considered the plea made by the tenant that he has nowhere else to go and he had found the same to be false, the Prescribed Authority has rightly allowed the Release Application.
The Appellate Authority as unduly interfered in the order dated 28.7.2016 and has made observations in the operative portion which bind the landlords into making available a shop in the same market to the tenant, which according to them, is not vacant at all.
Since, both the landlord as well as the tenant are aggrieved against the order dated 28.4.2018, a joint prayer has been made that the said order be set aside and the matter be remanded to the Appellate Authority to decide afresh.
I, therefore set aside the order dated 28.4.2018 and remand the matter to the Appellate Court to decide afresh in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
Since, evidence had already been led by the parties, it is expected that the Appellate Court shall decide the matter within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.
Both the petitions are disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.5.2018 Arif