Back
2002 Supreme(All) 1802
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. P. Mehrotra, J.
KHALILUR RAHMAN - Appellant
Versus
NOOR JAHAN ALIAS NOORI - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 51909 Of 2002
Decided On : 12/03/2002
Syed Wajid Ali
Findings of facts are not interfered with unless shown to be patently illegal or perverse, as established by legal precedents.
Headnote:
Release Application - Disputed Accommodation - U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, Section 21(1)(a) - Summary: The court discussed the release application filed under Section 21(1)(a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, and the findings on the questions of bona fide need and comparative hardships. The court referred to legal provisions and interpretations from India Pipe Fitting Co. v. Fakruddin M. A. Baker, Munni Lal and Ors. v. Prescribed Authority and Ashok Kumar and Ors. v. Sita Ram to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute related to an accommodation in Saharanpur, with the respondent filing a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 against the petitioner for the disputed accommodation.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the decisions of the authorities below, finding that the respondent's need for the accommodation was real and bona fide, and that the findings of facts on the questions of bona fide need and comparative hardship were recorded on detailed consideration of the material on record.
Issues: The issues included the petitioner's contestation of the release application and the consideration of the respondent's bona fide need and comparative hardships.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that findings of facts are normally not interfered with unless shown to be patently illegal or perverse, and referred to legal precedents to support its decision.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was granted time to vacate the disputed accommodation with specific conditions.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for quashing the judgment and order dated 8. 11. 2002 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition)passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Saharanpur, and the judgment and order dated 17. 10. 1997 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Prescribed authority/judge Small Cause Court, Saharanpur.
( 2 ) THE dispute relates to an accommodation bearing Municipal Corporation No. 4/493, Mohalla jaffer Nawab Khan, Saharanpur. The said accommodation has hereinafter been referred to as the "disputed accommodation".
( 3 ) FROM the allegations made in the writ petition, it appears that the respondent filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short "the Act") against the petitioner in respect of the disputed accommodation. A copy of the said release application filed by the respondent has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
( 4 ) IT was, inter alia, alleged in the said release application that the petitioner was a tenant of the respondent in the disputed accommodation at the monthly rent of Rs. 40 per month along with 12% water tax, total Rs. 44. 80 per month ; and that the disputed accommodation was bona fide required for the respondent and her large family members ; and that on comparison of hardships, the petitioner would not suffer any hardship as compared to that of the respondent. The said release application was registered as P. A. Case No, 1 of 1995.
( 5 ) THE petitioner contested the said release application, and filed his written statement, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition.
( 6 ) BOTH the sides filed affidavits and documentary evidence in support of their respective cases. The Prescribed Authority/judge Small Cause Court, Saharanpur, by his Judgment and order dated 17,10. 1997 allowed the said release application and released the disputed accommodation in favour of the respondent. It was, inter alia, held that there were 45 members in the family of the respondent, and only 4 rooms were available for their residence, as such, the need of the respondent was real and bona fide.
( 7 ) ON the question of comparative hardships, the learned Prescribed Authority held that in case of rejection of the said release application, the respondent would suffer much greater hardship than would be suffered by the petitioner in a case the said release application was allowed.
( 8 ) AGAINST the said judgment and order dated 17. 10. 1997 passed by the learned Prescribed authority/ Judge Small Cause Court, Saharanpur, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act which was registered as Rent Appeal No. 37 of 1997.
( 9 ) BY the judgment and order dated 8. 11. 2002, the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Saharanpur (Appellate Authority) dismissed the said appeal filed by the petitioner. The learned appellate authority again considered the entire evidence on record and drew various conclusions on the questions of facts involved in the case, and confirmed the said judgment and order dated 17. 10. 1997, passed by the learned Prescribed Authority/judge Small Cause Court, saharanpur.
( 10 ) THEREAFTER, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
( 11 ) I have heard Sri Syed Wajid Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner at length.
( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the said release application, an accommodation under the tenancy of one Abdul Kareem in the house in question was vacated as was pointed out in paragraph 26 of the written statement (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) filed on behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted that the authorities below have not considered the said aspect of the case.
( 13 ) HAVING considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find myself unable to accept the same. The appellate authorit
