Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/345/2007 of VED PRAKASH VERMA Vs RAJA ARVIND PITTI AND ORS on 31 December 2008
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 345 of 2007 (M/S) Ved Prakash Verma ..…… Petitioner Versus Raja Arvind Pitti and others …….. Respondents ………. Mr. Rattan Lal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 345 of 2007 (M/S)
Ved Prakash Verma ..…… Petitioner Versus Raja Arvind Pitti and others …….. Respondents ……….
Mr. Rattan Lal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for respondent no. 1.
Hon’ble V.K. GUPTA, C. J.
Both the Courts below have concurrently held against the petitioner. The main issue which was involved for adjudication and consideration in the Trial Court was whether U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was applicable to the tenancy/property in question or not. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the property in question belongs to a Trust and the Trust was a public charitable as well as religious institution and, therefore, provisions of Act No. 13 of 1972 were not applicable to the tenancy as well as the property in question. This apart, both the Courts below have also noticed that in an earlier litigation, the Court of law had pronounced the Trust in question as a public charitable as well as a public religious Trust and accordingly held that the Act No. 13of 1972 was not applicable. Both the Courts below have also concurrently held that the petitioner had sublet the property. No interference is warranted.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Interim order stands vacated.
At this stage, Mr. Rattan Lal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be given some time to vacate the shop in question. Granting the oral prayer of the learned counsel, it is directed that the impugned decree shall not be executed till 31.03.2009. This is subject to the petitioner’s filing a written undertaking in the Registry of this Court within two weeks from today to the effect that the petitioner shall vacate and handover the vacant possession of the shop in question by or before 31.03.2009. If this undertaking is not filed during this period, the order staying the execution of the eviction decree till 31.03.2009 shall cease to operate.
A
(V. K. Gupta, C. J.) 31.12.2008
Page 1 of 1
Loading citations and judicial treatment…