SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(All) 2083

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
N. K. Mehrotra, J.
BANSIDHAR - Appellant
Versus
XIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE - Respondents
Writ Petition 44 (R/c) Of 1998
Decided On : 09/24/2003

Advocates Appeared:
Arun Khanna, Deepak Seth, P.K.Khare, U.K.DHAON

The court upheld the findings of the prescribed authority and the appellate authority regarding the landlord's genuine and pressing need for the shop, and the tenant's comparative hardship.

Headnote:

tenant - U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Section 21(1)(a) - P. A. Case Nos. 13/1991 and 14/1991

Fact of the Case:

The tenant filed a writ petition to quash the judgment of the prescribed authority in P. A. Case Nos. 13/1991 and 14/1991. The tenant conceded to vacate the residential portion and sought to challenge the judgment only for the commercial shop.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the petition against the judgment for the residential portion as not pressed. The court considered the need for releasing the commercial shop and the comparative hardship faced by the tenant.

Issues: The main issue was the bona fide need of the landlord to release the commercial shop occupied by the tenant.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the findings of the prescribed authority and the appellate authority, which concluded that the landlord's need for the shop was genuine and pressing, and the tenant's comparative hardship was lesser.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, allowing the tenant six months to vacate the shop.

N. K. MEHROTRA, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER/ tenant has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuing a writ of certiorari to quash the judgment dated 17. 3. 1997 passed by the Second Additional Civil judge, Lucknow exercising the power of Prescribed Authority under U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction), Act, 1972 in P. A. Case Nos. 13/1991 and 14/1991 as contained in Annexure-2 and the judgment and order dated 26. 3. 1998 passed by the XIIth additional District Judge, Lucknow in the Rent Appeal Nos. 35 of 1997 and 36 of 1997.

( 2 ) IT appears that the opposite party No. 3 had filed two applications under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as act) for release of House No. 39/93 situated in Grain Market Narhi, P. S. Hazratganj, Lucknow. This application was registered as P. A. Case No. 13 of 1991. The opposite party No. 3 also moved another application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act, in respect of the shop situated in Building No. 39/93 Grain Market Narhi. This application was registered as P. A. No. 14/1991. The petitioner is tenant in both the accommodations for residential as well as for commercial purpose. The property detailed in the release application in P. A. Case No. 13 of 1991 was for residential purpose and the shop on the ground floor in the same accommodation was let out to the petitioner for commercial purpose.

( 3 ) THE Prescribed Authority allowed both the applications and the appeal filed against the judgment of the prescribed authority was dismissed.

( 4 ) THE writ petition has been filed against any judgment of the prescribed authority in P. A. Case nos. 13 of 1991 and 14 of 1991.

( 5 ) AT the time of admission of the writ petition the learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that he would not be able to press case of the petitioner/tenant with regard to residential portion in his accommodation and sought two months time to vacate the residential portion for which p. A. Case No. 13 of 1991 was registered. This Court permitted two months time for vacation of residential portion. At the time of argument it has been admitted by both the parties that the residential portion has been vacated by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed the petition against the impugned judgment with regard to the residential portion, which was in the tenancy of the petitioner in House No. 113/93 situated at Grain Market Narhi. Therefore, the writ petition against the judgment of the prescribed authority in P. A. Case No. 13 of 1991 and the judgment in Appeal No. 35 of 1997 is to be dismissed as not pressed.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has made submissions for issuing a writ for quashing the judgment in Prescribed Authority Case No. 14 of 1991 and the judgment passed in Rent appeal No. 36 of 1997, therefore, in this writ petition the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the judgment in Prescribed Authority Case No. 14 of 1991 are to be looked into.

( 7 ) THE release of the shop was sought on the ground that the opposite party No. 3 was doing the business of Electrical goods in a very small shop at Niyamat Ullah Road, Aminabad, Lucknow. He had engaged his two sons Shri Indra Mohan Agrawal and Krishna Mohan Agrawal in the said business. It was alleged that there was no other accommodation for the business of the opposite party No. 3, he wanted to settle the other two sons Manmohan Agrawal and Anil Kumar agrawal who were not engaged in business and wanted them to start a business of Electrical goods in the shop in question. The petitioner filed written statement denying the bona fide need of opposite party No. 3. It was contended that besides the disputed shop there is one another shop in possession of landlord at Nlyamat Ullah Road, Aminabad, Lucknow. Besides that shop there is another shop at 67 Gautam Budh Marg,









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top