IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 100 of 2011

1.

Smt. Leela Joshi, W/o late Dutta Joshi

2.

Mohan Chandra Joshi, S/o Late Badri Dutt Joshi

3.

Lalit Mohan Joshi, S/o Late Badri Dutt Joshi

4.

Ajay Kumr Joshi, S/o Late Badri Dutt Joshi

All R/o Laskariya Bhawan near District Animal Hospital

Dharamshala Line, Pithoragarh District Pithoragarh

..….Petitioners

-Versus-

1.

District Judge, Pithoragarh

2.

Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Pithoragarh

3.

Ravindra Singh Bisht, S/o late Sri Chanchal Singh

Bisht, R/o Maldar Bhawan, Mohala Purani Bazar,

Pithoragarh, District Pithoragarh

.....Respondents

Present:

Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioners.

Mr. Suyash Pant, the learned Standing Counsel for the State.

Mr. Ravi Babulkar, the learned counsel for respondent no. 3.

Sri S.K. Mishra, J.

Date of hearing and judgment

22.12.2021

1.

Heard Mr. Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, the learned

counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Suyash Pant, the

learned Standing Counsel for the State, and Mr.

Ravi

Babulkar, the learned counsel for respondent no. 3.

2.

In this writ petition, filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioners being defendants

in SCC Suit No. 1 of 1992 of the Court of Judge, Small

Causes (Munsif), Pithoragarh, has assailed the order

passed by the Judge, SCC on 14.06.2005, giving

directions to the petitioners to vacate the property and

Page No. 1 of 15

hand it over to respondent no. 3 which was partially

modified by the revisional court.

3.

The facts of the case may be summarized as

follows:

Plaintiff/respondent no. 3 filed a suit under the

Small Causes Court Act before the Judge, SCC,

Pithoragarh, registered as SCC No. 1 of 1992. He

sought for decree of eviction, arrears of rent and

damages mainly on the ground that late Narendra

Singh Bisht, Moti Devi and Chanchal Singh Bisht are the

members of Hindu Joint Family and plaintiff/respondent

no. 3 is managing the property of the family as

manager in charge. The plaintiff further averred that

occupier of the property, namely, Lashkaria Bhawan,

and the petitioners are the tenant of the property and

the

defendants

have

not

paid

the

rent

since

01.04.1985, and, denied the ownership of the plaintiff

over the property in question. It is further stated that

the defendants has also encroached some vacant area

by constructing one room in violation of the terms of

tenancy and has also constructed kitchen and cow shed

on land passage which is common to all tenants. The

plaintiff further averred that the defendants constructed

two rooms by occupying two washrooms, front yard

which was in the common use of six tenants. The

further case of the plaintiff is that defendant with

collusion of the legal administrator got the property in

his name by auction belonging to the passage, front

yard and washroom.

Page No. 2 of 15

A

notice

was

sent

on

21.06.1991

through

registered

post,

acknowledgment

due,

to

the

defendants but notices were returned. Hence, the

plaintiff prayed for recovery of damages, possession of

the disputed property as per Section 20 (2) clause (A)

of the U.P. Urban building (Regulation of Letting, Rent

and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Rent

Control Act for the brevity).

The petitioners, being the defendants, filed their

written statements denying in general the averments

made by the plaintiffs. Additionally, they plead that the

disputed house was allotted by the Rent Control Officer,

Pithoragarh in the year 1965 and the defendants has

paid the rent as fixed in the allotment order. The

plaintiffs, since 1986-87 refused to accept the rent and

money order of the rent was also returned, therefore,

the rent was deposited in rent control case no. 12 of

1987 from the year 1986 to 1992. It