1 to 3, within one month from the date of the said order.
In all, Jaitpur Sadan has five shops of the same size facing east and four shops of the same size and one adjoining mini store which is probably another smaller shop and staircase for reaching first floor, facing west.
SLP C No.
Thus, unsatisfied and feeling aggrieved thereof the Appellants preferred Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.
September, 2005 onwards they pay the Respondent Nos.
1 who was working as the Medical Officer at Zila Parishad, Saharanpur retired on 31.07.1992.
40 and Rs.
15,000/ per month charges for use and occupation during the pendency of appeal.
Thus, the order of release passed by Prescribed Authority came to be partially modified by the Appellate Authority in as much as the order of release for two shops in their favour was maintained.
Thus, the ratio of the aforesaid judgments cited by learned companynsel for Appellants has numberapplication to the facts of the present case.
Even though, the Appellants writ petition was kept pending and directed to be listed in the month of July, 2007 for reporting companypliance of the aforesaid directions, the Appellants feeling aggrieved thereof have preferred this appeal on variety of grounds.
Sri Farhat Ali Khan and order dated 20.10.2008 passed in Civil Appeal No.
2100/ per month, for both the shops.
On the said date learned companynsel for Respondent Nos.
60/ per A. No.
13 of 1972 hereinafter shall be referred to as the Act against the Appellants Tenants as well as the Respondent No.4 praying for release of any one pair of the said two pairs of shops in his favour.
Earlier when the abovementioned Jaitpur Sadan was companystructed, it appears that the same was about 20 Kms.
It appears that the said writ petition companytinued to be pending before learned Single Judge.
In case of two defaults, the stay order would stand vacated automatically.
At that time the Appellants were paying rent at Rs.
On the other hand learned companynsel appearing for Respondents strenuously companytended that building known as Jaitpur house, with the A. No.
600/ per month for both the shops to Rs.
2100/ per month, payable from February 2007.
We have accordingly heard Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg for the Appellants and Mrs. Rachna Gupta and Mr. R.C. Kaushik for the Respondents and perused the record.
The same matter again came up for hearing before another learned Single Judge on 13.02.2007.
Thus, he filed an application under Section 21 1 a of the U.P. Act No.
14 of 2008 titled Md. Safi D Th.
6319 of 2007 learned Single Judge directed that the Appellants will number be dispossessed from the shops in dispute provided, w.e.f.
SLP C No.
In the light of aforesaid offer having been made by the Respondents and duly A. No.
600/ per month to Rs.
He had requested both Appellant No.1 and Respondent No.4, Shri Md. Ahmad Iqbal, respectively, for release of any one pair of shops, but neither of the two acceded to his request.
For his personal A. No.
1 to 3, rent at the rate of Rs.
600/ per month by 7th of each succeeding month.
Now with the passage of time, the outer limits of the city have grown and have companye to include the said building.
6319 of 2007 bonafide need he needed these two small shops, i.e. an east facing room for companysultation and setting up medical equipment and an adjoining west facing room to serve as a waiting room for patients .
SLP C No.
It appears while companysidering the application for stay, the A. No.
The said order was passed by learned Single Judge in the Appellants Writ Petition on 14.09.2005.
Feeling aggrieved thereof Rent Control Appeals were preferred by both the parties, i.e., Respondent Nos.1 to 3 landlords and Respondent No.4 before Additional District Judge, Saharanpur.
But in the case in hand it is clearly reflected that Respondents landlords made an offer to the Appellants tenants which they agreed, only thereafter the rent was enhanced from Rs.
6319 of 2007 month for the pair of shops in their possession.
have been recently let out on rent at the rate of Rs.
6319 of 2007 the pair of shops in tenancy of present Appellants be released shown as Item B in the Map annexed , instead of the pair of shops in the possession of Respondent No.4 as decreed by the Trial Court, and furthermore, they were directed to deliver peaceful and vacant possession thereof to the Respondent Nos.
The matter was companytested by the Appellants before the Prescribed Authority IV Additional Civil Judge, Saharanpur, whereby and whereunder the said authority allowed the application of Respondents Nos.1 to 3 landlords and on a companyparative assessment of facts and circumstances, released the property shown as Item A in the Map annexed in which Respondent No.4 was a tenant, in their favour.
Vide judgment and order dated 24.08.2004, the Appellate Court upheld the decree of the IV Additional Civil Judge, Saharanpur but modified it, to the extent that A. No.
SLP C No.
Non payment of rent may also be a ground for dismissal of the writ petition.
The sketch map shows that one of the shops facing western side is already in his occupation.
order dated 03.01.2008 passed in Civil Appeal No.
3,50,000/ per month.
The Rent Control Tribunal was right in putting the tenant on terms of payment of Rs.
6171 of 2008 titled Sadan Gopal Gautam Vs.
39727 of 2004 before learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
away from the city of Saharanpur.
20/ total Rs.
