Brief facts which led to filing of these appeals are as under The respondent landlord filed an eviction petition before the Competent Authority Civil Judge, Senior Division under Section 21 1 a of U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent Eviction Act, 1972 hereinafter referred to as the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 for release of property from the tenant Late Lalita Devi from the suit property bearing No.6/7, Amrit Kaur Road, New Road , Dehradun on the ground of his bona fide need.
The appellant is the brother of deceased Lalita, who was the tenant of the respondent herein.
During the pendency of appeal, tenant Lalita Devi passed away on 06.07.2013.
On that application, the appellant was impleaded as a defendant respondent in the said appeal.
The said application was allowed and the appellant was impleaded as a defendant respondent in the said appeal.
The High Court further held that vacancy was liable to be declared on the demised premises, on the death of sole tenant Lalita, the review application filed by the appellant also came to be dismissed vide order dated 31.08.2015.
On those findings the appellate companyrt set aside the order of the prescribed authority and allowed the appeal.
Aggrieved by the said order, respondent landlord preferred an appeal under Section 22 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972 before the appellate companyrt which was transferred to Additional District Judge VII, Dehradun.
Thereafter the appellant tenant preferred a writ petition before the High Court which was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 09.03.2015, holding that the appellant does number companye within the definition of family as per Section 3 g of U.P. Act XIII of 1972.
As pointed out by the High Court, the present appellant may have been rightly or wrongly substituted after the demise of his sister.
2729 of 2014 dated 09.03.2015 dismissing the writ petition and also the review petition, thereby affirming the findings of Additional District and Sessions Judge VII, Dehradun that the appellant is an unauthorized occupant in suit premises and that he does number companye within the definition of family of the deceased tenant as per Section 3 g number an heir under Section 3 a of the U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972.
The appellate Court allowed the said appeal vide order dated 10.10.2014 holding that during the pendency of the appeal the sole tenant Lalita passed away and Durga Prasad, who has been substituted is number a member of the family and that he has number been able to prove that he was previously residing with his sister Lalita in the said premises.
The respondent landlord moved a substitution application before the appellate companyrt with a prayer that the appellant, who is the real brother of deceased, be substituted in her place.
Both the orders are impugned in these appeals.
The application was dismissed vide order dated 19.04.2010 by the Prescribed Authority.
BANUMATHI, J. These appeals arise from the judgment of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition MS No.
Father in law of deceased Lalita DeviHem Ram Sharma had taken the suit property on rent and after his death his son Baldev husband of Lalita became the tenant of the suit property and after the death of Baldev, Lalita became the tenant of suit property.
