IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2060 of 2008 (M/S) Ajay Garg ………. Petitioner Versus Chetan Om Sharma ……… Respondent ………. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the respondent Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. After hearing the detailed arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the impugned judgment as well as the judgment of the learned Trial Court as also upon perusal of the various document, I have not doubt in my mind that both the Courts below, while concurrently deciding against the petitioner, have rightly held that Act No. 13 of 1972 is not applicable to the property in question, simply because of the fact that the property was constructed in July, 1986. Both the Courts below have also rightly held that the tenancy of the petitioner was determined by the service of a valid notice. No other point was urged. The petition is dismissed in limine. (V.K. Gupta, C.J.) 05.12.2008 A