IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 907 of 2010 (M/S) Smt. Anjana Bisht & others ………..Petitioners Versus Maal Singh …….Respondent Shri H.S. Dhillon, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri U.P.S. Negi, learned counsel for the respondent. Dated: 11h June, 2010 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Present petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 01.05.2010 passed by learned Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Pauri Garhwal in Rent Execution Case no.06/2009, “Maal Singh Vs. Smt. Anjana Bisht and others” whereby the petitioners have been directed to handover the possession of the property in dispute to the respondent. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the respondent is landlord of house no.92 situated at Danda Pani, Pauri Garhwal. The petitioners are the tenants of the respondent since 1983 @ Rs.500/- per month. The petitioner no.1 is a widow lady and has two minor sons who are living in premise in question. On 30.12.2003, the respondent filed an application u/s 21(1) A of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (herein after called Act, 1972) before learned Prescribed 2 Authority/ Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Pauri Garhwal against the husband of the petitioner no.1 for eviction from the premise in question on the ground of bonafide need. The said application was registered as P.A. No.56 of 2003, “Maal Singh Vs. Sri Harender Singh Bisht”. During the pendency of the aforesaid application husband of the petitioner no.1 died on 05.06.2004 and the petitioners were substituted as respondents in the aforesaid application vide order dated 19.06.2004. The learned Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Pauri Garhwal allowed the application of the respondent vide order dated 27.02.2006 and petitioners were directed to vacate the premises in question within one month and hand over the possession of the same to the respondent. Aggrieved vide order dated 27.02.2006, the petitioners preferred an appeal before learned District Judge, Pauri Garhwal U/s 22 of the Act, 1972. The said appeal was registered as Rent Appeal no.08/2006 on 29.03.2006. During the pendency of the aforesaid appeal the petitioners moved an application dated 25.09.2008 mentioning therein that the petitioners have their own land near the premise in question and petitioners want to construct their own house. For the construction activity one year time is required so that time may be granted to vacate the premise in question. On the aforesaid application the respondent gave his consent. On the basis of said application dated 25.09.2008 and consent given by the respondent, the learned District Judge, Pauri Garhwal decided the appeal vide order dated 25.09.2008. Consequently, modified the order dated 27.02.2006 passed in Rent Case no.53/2003 and one year time was granted to the petitioners to vacate the premise in question from the date of order. After passing the aforesaid order dated 25.09.2008 the petitioners made efforts to arrange the funds for construction. The proposed house of the petitioners are to be constructed in Khautani Khata 46, Khet No.1496 area 0.020 hectare situated at village Raiee Malli, Patti Nandlasyu, Tehsil Pauri Garhwal. For raising the construction in the aforesaid land, no objection certificates are required from the concern departments. The petitioners applied to the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Pauri Garhwal for obtaining the no objection certificate regarding earthquake and the same was received by the petitioners on 03.10.2009. The petitioners also received no objection certificate regarding the pollution on 31.10.2009. The map of the proposed house of the petitioners was sanctioned by the Muncipal Board, Pauri Garhwal vide letter dated 24.02.2010. Petitioner also got no objection certificate from the Executive Engineer, Maintenance Division, Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan, Pauri vide letter dated 26.02.2010. The petitioners applied before District Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal for permission under the Road Side Land Control Act to raise construction at the site. In this regard Executive Engineer, National Highway Block, Public Works Department, Dhoomakot, Pauri submitted his consent before District Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal vide letter dated 10.05.2010 and the 4 application of the petitioners is still pending before District Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal. The petitioner no.1 has done all her efforts to raise the construction at her own land. Now, almost all required documents have been completed except the final permission of the District Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal. On 06.10.2009, the respondent moved an application u/s 23 of the Act 1972 for enforcement of the order dated 25.09.2008 before the learned Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Pauri Garhwal. The said application was registered as Execution case no.06/2009, “ Maal Singh V/s Smt. Anjana Bisht and others”. The petitioners filed objection against the said application on the ground that the petitioners want sometime to vacate the premise in question. The learned Prescribed Authority/ Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Pauri Garhwal rejected the objection of the petitioners vide impugned order dated 01.05.2010 and petitioners have been directed to handover the possession of the premise in question to the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Prescribed Authority/ Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Pauri Garhwal without considering the genuine need of the petitioners directed the petitioners to vacate the premise in question immediately. The petitioner is making all her efforts to start the construction work at her own land as soon as possible. The proposed house of the petitioner is to be constructed near the premise in question as such it is convenient for the petitioners to raise the construction at site and look after the construction material from the place of premise in question. The petitioner no.l is a widow lady. She has two minor sons. She is only member in her family who is earning bread and butter. She is working as Accountant in Nehru Yuva Kendra, Pauri Garhwal. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to vacate the premise in question within six months. If the petitioners are dispossessed forcefully from the premise in question, they will suffer irreparable loss and injury. After considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. Petitioners themselves gave undertaking before the District Judge on 25.09.2008 for vacating the premises within one year but same has not been vacated, though about 20 months have passed. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is directed that the respondent shall permit the petitioners to occupy the house in question for 15 days i.e till 25.06.2010. The petitioners are directed to handover the possession of the property in dispute on or before 26.06.2010. (V.K. Bist, J.) Arpan 11.06.2010