http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1244 of 2008

PETITIONER: Ashok Kumar

RESPONDENT: Sukhwant Singh

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/02/2008

BENCH: Tarun Chatterjee & Harjit Singh Bedi

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

               O R D E R   CIVIL APPEAL NO 1244 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP)No.3152 of 2007)

1.      Leave granted.

2.      This is an appeal from the final judgment and order dated 21st  of November, 2006 passed in Writ Petition No.1044 of 2004 (M/S)  and order dated 12th of December, 2006 in Review Application  No.314 of 2006 passed by the High Court of Uttaranchal at  Nainital whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent was  allowed and the review petition filed by the petitioner was  dismissed. 3.      An application for release was filed by the respondent under  Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P.Act No.13 of 1972 in respect of the  premises in question before the prescribed authority which was  allowed but in appeal the appellate authority allowed the appeal  and rejected the release application filed by the respondent.  However, in the writ application, the High Court had set aside the  order of the appellate authority and allowed the release application,  thereby directing the respondent to be evicted from the premises in  question.  4.      We have heard Mr.Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing  on behalf of the tenant-appellant and Mr.Huzefa Ahmadi, learned  counsel appearing on behalf of the landlord-respondent. We have  also examined the judgment of the High Court as well as the orders  of the courts below. We have also examined the materials already  on record.  5.      Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after  going through the impugned judgment as well as the orders of the  authorities below, we do not find any ground to interfere with the  order of the High Court which restored the order of release in  favour of the respondent on the ground that the respondent  bonafide required the premises in question. Accordingly, we do not  find any infirmity in the judgment of the High Court, excepting  that in view of the nature of the room that is being occupied by the  respondent, we have asked for an undertaking from the landlord  that the respondent shall not disturb the access to the passage in  front of the tenanted room for the purpose of accessing his other  tenanted property. Accordingly, an undertaking has been filed by  the landlord-respondent that the appellant shall have access to the  passage in front of the tenanted room for the purpose of ingress  and egress to his other tenanted property. The passage that shall be  permitted to use is marked in red and outlined in black in the map  appended with the undertaking filed by the respondent. We are  also informed that the concerned room is having two doors and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

Mr.Ahmadi learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent  had also given an undertaking before us that both the doors shall be  closed by the respondent. Accepting the undertaking given by the  respondent and in view of the fact that this appeal has no merit, we  dispose of the appeal in the following manner:- The appeal shall  stand dismissed and the appellant shall vacate the tenanted room  within three months from the date of supply of a copy of this order  to the parties. The appellant shall also file another undertaking  within a fortnight form this date that he shall vacate the premises in  question and deliver vacant and peaceful possession to the  respondent within three months from this date, subject to  depositing or paying all arrears of rent or occupational charges at  the rate of Rs.100/- for the period the appellant has not paid to the  respondent. The copy of the undertaking that has been filed by the  respondent shall also form a part of this order, that is, the appellant  shall have the access to the passage in front of the premises in  question for the purpose of ingress and egress to his other tenanted  property, the particulars of which has already been described in red  and outlined in black in the map appended with the undertaking  filed by the respondent. The copy of the undertaking that has been  filed by the respondent shall also form a part of this order.  6.      The appeal is thus dismissed, subject to the modification as  above. There will be no order as to costs.