Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. P. Mehrotra, J.
VINESH KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
SAGHIR AHMAD - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 46972 Of 2002
Decided On : 10/30/2002
Release Application - Disputed Shop - U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, Section 21(1)(a) - The court discussed the release application filed by the landlord-respondent under Section 21(1)(a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for the release of the disputed shop. The court considered the grounds for release, the partition of the property, the bona fide need of the landlord-respondent, and the comparative hardships of the parties involved.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute involved a release application filed by the landlord-respondent under Section 21(1)(a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for the release of the disputed shop. The tenant-petitioner contested the release application, alleging res judicata from an earlier release application.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the release application was valid and allowed it, awarding compensation to the tenant-petitioner. The appellate authority confirmed the decision, considering the genuine partition and the bona fide need of the landlord-respondent.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the release application, the grounds for release, the partition of the property, and the comparative hardships of the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the findings of fact on the questions of bona fide need and comparative hardships, citing precedents that emphasized the limited scope of interference with findings of fact in writ jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and granted time for the tenant-petitioner to vacate the disputed shop, subject to certain conditions.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of india, inter alia, praying for quashing the judgment and order dated 22. 10. 2002, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, (Court No. 3), Meerut (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) and the judgment and order dated 31. 8. 2002, passed by the learned Judge, Small Cause court/prescribed Authority. Meerut (Annexure-5 to the writ petition ).
( 2 ) THE dispute relates to a shop situated in Mohalla Sarai Afganan, Kasba Sarthana, District meerut, the details whereof have been given in the release application. The said shop has, hereinafter, been referred to as "the disputed shop".
( 3 ) FROM the allegations made in the writ petition, it appears that the landlord-respondent filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short "the Act")against the tenant-petitioner for the release of the disputed shop.
( 4 ) IT was, inter alia, alleged in the said release application that as a result of partition of the property between the landlord-respondent and his brother Qadeer Ahmad, the disputed shop fell to the share of landlord respondent ; and that the petitioner was the tenant of the disputed shop ; and that the landlord-respondent used to do the work of Rajgiri ; and that the sons of the landlord-respondent were unemployed ; and that there was no shop available to the landlord-respondent for settling his sons in business. A copy of the release application has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
( 5 ) THE tenant-petitioner contested the release application and filed a written statement, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It was inter alia, alleged by the tenant-petitioner that the landlord-respondent had earlier filed release application which was dismissed, and as such, the present release application was barred by the principles of res judicata.
( 6 ) EVIDENCE was led by both the sides in the said release case : after considering the entire material on record, the learned Judge, Small Cause Court/ prescribed Authority, Meerut, by his Judgment and order dated 31. 8. 2002, inter alia, allowed the said release application filed by the landlord-respondent in respect of the disputed shop and also awarded Rs. 2,400 as compensation to the tenant-petitioner. In the said judgment and order dated 31. 8. 2002, it was, inter alia, held that it was established on record that the disputed shop fell to the share of the landlord-respondent as a result of partition between the landlord-respondent and his brother. It was. inter alia, further held that the present release application was filed on 7. 12. 2000 after the expiry of more than one year from 7. 10. 1999 on which date the appellate authority passed the order in the earlier release application. It was, inter alia, further held that the grounds taken in the present release application were different from those taken in the earlier release application, therefore, the decision on the earlier release application would not operate as res judicata.
( 7 ) IT was, infer alia, further held in the said judgment and order dated 31. 8. 2002, that the need of the landlord-respondent for the release of the disputed shop was bona fide. It was, inter alia, further held that the landlord-respondent would suffer greater hardship in case of rejection of the release application.
( 8 ) AGAINST the said judgment and order dated 31. 8. 2002, the tenant-petitioner filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act which was registered as P. A. Appeal No. 229 of 2002.
( 9 ) THE learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Meerut (Appellate Authority) by the judgment and order dated 22. 10. 2002, dismissed the said appeal, and confirmed the said judgment and order dated 31. 8. 2002 passed by the learned Prescribed Authority. It was, inter alia, held in the said judgment and order dated 22. 10. 2002, that the tenant-petitione
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
