Being aggrieved with the Order passed by the learned District Judge in companyfirming the Order passed by the Prescribed Authority, the landlord filed Writ Petition No.5459 of 2001 before the High Court.
3.1 Being aggrieved with the Order passed by the learned Prescribed Authority, the landlord filed Rent Control Appeal No.7 of 1998 under Section 22 of the Act before the learned District Judge, Almora.
By Judgment and Order dated 25.08.2014, the High Court allowed the said Writ Petition and ordered eviction of the appellants hereintenants.
Hence the present appeals.
That thereafter, the Review Application was preferred by the appellants herein which came to be dismissed by the High Court.
That thereafter, the appellants filed SLP C Nos.442443 of 2015 before this Court.
That vide Judgment and Order dated 30.08.2001, the learned District Judge, Almora rejected the appeal filed by the landlord holding that the building is number in a dilapidated companydition and it does number require demolition and reconstruction.
Vide order dated 30.01.2015, this Court granted the leave and set aside the Orders dated 25.08.2014 and 20.11.2014 passed by the High Court and remanded back the matter to the High Court to decide the same in accordance with law.
That thereafter, the appellants hereintenants preferred Review Application.
The same came to be dismissed vide impugned Order dated 11.08.2017.
We have heard learned Advocates appeared on behalf of the respective parties at length.
R. SHAH, J. Leave granted.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment and Order dated 21.10.2016 and 11.08.2017 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition M S No.5459 of 2001 and Review Application No.877 of 2016 respectively, the original defendants tenants have preferred the present appeals.
Respondent No.1 hereinlandlord filed an application under Section 21 1 a b of the U.P. Urban Building Act hereinafter referred to as the Act for release of the building from the father of the appellant herein Late Guru Charan Lal who was a tenant in respect of two rooms with veranda on the back side on the lowest storey and the husband of Appellant No.2 Late Roshan Lal was tenant in respect of another portion of the property on the same floor.
