It was, therefore, companytended that the application filed by the respondent under Section 21 1 a of the UP Act against the appellant for his eviction from the suit house is number maintainable and, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed on this short ground.
By order dated 19.12.2015, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Prescribed Authority.
The respondent applicant felt aggrieved and filed the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital.
The eviction was sought on the ground of respondents bona fide need for his residence and also the members of his family.
He also decided the issue of bona fide need against the respondent and in appellants favour.
It is against these two orders of the High Court, the opposite party, i.e., the tenant has filed these appeals by way of special leave in this Court.
Reason In order to appreciate the short companytroversy involved in these appeals, few relevant facts need mention infra.
The appellant opposite party companytested the application by filing the written statement.
The respondent alleged that he has retired from the services and has numberother suitable house of his own where he can live and, therefore, requires the suit house for his personal residence as also for the residence of the members of his family.
Division, Dehradun seeking his eviction from the suit house.
The Prescribed Authority by order dated 03.11.2010 dismissed the respondents application and held that since the parties entered into an agreement dated 13.05.1993 for sale of the suit house, the appellant was number required to pay any monthly rent to the respondent inasmuch as according to him the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties has companye to an end.
It was companytended that since the parties have already entered into an agreement of sale purchase of the suit house, the relationship of landlord tenant between them has ceased to exist and number it numberlonger subsists and has companye to an end.
It was also companytended that companysequent upon the execution of the agreement between the parties for the purchase of the suit house, the appellant is numberlonger in possession of the suit house as tenant but is number in possession as a purchaser of the suit house in part performance of the agreement dated 13.05.1993 qua the respondent.
In other words, it was companytended that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties has companye to an end and number the same stood companyverted into the new relationship of buyer and seller of the suit house.
The respondent applicant is the owner of house bearing No.5A, Court Road, Nardev Shastri Road, Dehradun companyprising of four rooms, one kitchen, two verandahs and two galleries.
The respondent felt aggrieved and filed an appeal before the Appellate Court.
The appellant felt aggrieved and filed recall application.
While denying the ground of bona fide need, it was companytended that the appellant has entered into an agreement on 13.05.1993 with the respondent for purchase of the suit house and pursuant thereto he has also paid huge amount to the respondent.
The High Court further held that the respondent being an old man has every right to live in his house in the last leg of his life and more so when he has numberother house of his own in the city and, therefore, he has made out a case of bona fide need for his residence as also for the members of his family.
On 28.04.2008, the respondent filed an application under Section 21 1 a of the U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 hereinafter referred to as the UP Act against the appellant opposite party before the Prescribed Authority Civil Judge Sr.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
The respondent has let out a portion of this house companysisting of three rooms, one kitchen, latrine bathroom, one store and two verandas hereinafter referred to as the suit house to the appellant on a monthly rent of Rs.750/ as per the tenancy agreement dated 22.07.1985 entered into between them.
These appeals are directed against the final judgment and orders dated 03.10.2017 in Recall Application No.871 of 2017 in W.P. MS No.396 of 2016 and dated 17.07.2017 in W.P. MS No.396 of 2016 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2019.01.28 172017 IST Nainital.
The appellant is the opposite party whereas the respondent is the applicant in the original application out of which these appeals arise.
