Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1244 of 2008
PETITIONER:
Ashok Kumar
RESPONDENT:
Sukhwant Singh
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/02/2008
BENCH:
Tarun Chatterjee & Harjit Singh Bedi
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
O R D E R
CIVIL APPEAL NO 1244 OF 2008
(Arising out of SLP)No.3152 of 2007)
1. Leave granted.
2. This is an appeal from the final judgment and order dated 21st
of November, 2006 passed in Writ Petition No.1044 of 2004 (M/S)
and order dated 12th of December, 2006 in Review Application
No.314 of 2006 passed by the High Court of Uttaranchal at
Nainital whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent was
allowed and the review petition filed by the petitioner was
dismissed.
3. An application for release was filed by the respondent under
Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P.Act No.13 of 1972 in respect of the
premises in question before the prescribed authority which was
allowed but in appeal the appellate authority allowed the appeal
and rejected the release application filed by the respondent.
However, in the writ application, the High Court had set aside the
order of the appellate authority and allowed the release application,
thereby directing the respondent to be evicted from the premises in
question.
4. We have heard Mr.Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the tenant-appellant and Mr.Huzefa Ahmadi, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the landlord-respondent. We have
also examined the judgment of the High Court as well as the orders
of the courts below. We have also examined the materials already
on record.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after
going through the impugned judgment as well as the orders of the
authorities below, we do not find any ground to interfere with the
order of the High Court which restored the order of release in
favour of the respondent on the ground that the respondent
bonafide required the premises in question. Accordingly, we do not
find any infirmity in the judgment of the High Court, excepting
that in view of the nature of the room that is being occupied by the
respondent, we have asked for an undertaking from the landlord
that the respondent shall not disturb the access to the passage in
front of the tenanted room for the purpose of accessing his other
tenanted property. Accordingly, an undertaking has been filed by
the landlord-respondent that the appellant shall have access to the
passage in front of the tenanted room for the purpose of ingress
and egress to his other tenanted property. The passage that shall be
permitted to use is marked in red and outlined in black in the map
appended with the undertaking filed by the respondent. We are
also informed that the concerned room is having two doors and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Mr.Ahmadi learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
had also given an undertaking before us that both the doors shall be
closed by the respondent. Accepting the undertaking given by the
respondent and in view of the fact that this appeal has no merit, we
dispose of the appeal in the following manner:- The appeal shall
stand dismissed and the appellant shall vacate the tenanted room
within three months from the date of supply of a copy of this order
to the parties. The appellant shall also file another undertaking
within a fortnight form this date that he shall vacate the premises in
question and deliver vacant and peaceful possession to the
respondent within three months from this date, subject to
depositing or paying all arrears of rent or occupational charges at
the rate of Rs.100/- for the period the appellant has not paid to the
respondent. The copy of the undertaking that has been filed by the
respondent shall also form a part of this order, that is, the appellant
shall have the access to the passage in front of the premises in
question for the purpose of ingress and egress to his other tenanted
property, the particulars of which has already been described in red
and outlined in black in the map appended with the undertaking
filed by the respondent. The copy of the undertaking that has been
filed by the respondent shall also form a part of this order.
6. The appeal is thus dismissed, subject to the modification as
above. There will be no order as to costs.