Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R. H. Zaidi, J.
HEERA LAL AGARWAL - Appellant
Versus
IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, FARRUKHABAD - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 7808 Of 1998
Decided On : 09/28/2000
Writ Petition - Dispute over shop premises - U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Section 21(1)(a) - Section 22 - Section 10 - The appellate authority acted illegally in setting aside the judgment and order passed by the prescribed authority without critically examining properly setting aside the findings on which said judgment was based. The judgment of the appellate authority is the Judgment of reversal, therefore, it should be adequate and satisfactory. The appellate authority should examine the judgment of the prescribed authority critically if it wanted to reverse the findings recorded by the prescribed authority. It must meet the reasons recorded, after referring to the evidence which was referred and relied upon by the prescribed authority, including such other evidence which formed part of the record and thereafter, it could reverse the findings and record its own findings on the questions involved in the appeal. The appellate authority did not reverse the finding on the question of comparative hardship in accordance with law. The judgment and order passed by the appellate authority is bad in law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant of a shop, filed a writ petition seeking to quash the judgment and order passed by the appellate authority allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the prescribed authority under Section 21(1)(a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.
Finding of the Court:
The appellate authority acted illegally in setting aside the judgment and order passed by the prescribed authority without critically examining properly setting aside the findings on which said judgment was based. The judgment of the appellate authority is the Judgment of reversal, therefore, it should be adequate and satisfactory. The appellate authority should examine the judgment of the prescribed authority critically if it wanted to reverse the findings recorded by the prescribed authority. It must meet the reasons recorded, after referring to the evidence which was referred and relied upon by the prescribed authority, including such other evidence which formed part of the record and thereafter, it could reverse the findings and record its own findings on the questions involved in the appeal. The appellate authority did not reverse the finding on the question of comparative hardship in accordance with law. The judgment and order passed by the appellate authority is bad in law.
Issues: The main issue was the legality of the appellate authority's decision to set aside the judgment and order passed by the prescribed authority without critically examining the findings and without reversing the finding on the question of comparative hardship in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate authority should critically examine the findings of the prescribed authority and meet the reasons recorded before reversing the findings. The appellate authority must record its own findings on the questions involved in the appeal after referring to the evidence relied upon by the prescribed authority. The appellate authority must reverse the findings in accordance with law and provide definite reasons for the reversal.
Final Decision: The writ petition succeeded, and the judgment and order passed by the appellate authority were quashed. The case was remanded to the appellate authority for decision afresh in the light of the observations made. The appellate authority was directed to consider the offer made by the petitioner to provide a suitable shop to the contesting respondents at Lohai Road while deciding the appeal. The appeal was to be decided expeditiously.
( 1 ) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 25. 11. 1997 passed by the appellate authority allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and order dated 30. 8. 1996 passed by the prescribed authority in the proceeding under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)Act, 1972 (U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the Act.
( 2 ) THE dispute relates to shop Nos. 5/23, 5/24. Nehru Nagar, Farrukhabad (hereinafter referred to as shop in dispute ). The petitioner is a tenant of the shop in dispute and used to carry on "sarrafa" business in the said shop for last more than 40 years in the name and style of Firm Sundar Lal ram Bharose and Company. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (hereinafter referred to as contesting respondents) applied for release of the shop in dispute as according to them the said shop was needed for setting Prabhat Kumar son of Rajendra Prasad (respondent No. 2) in the business of sale of furniture and gift articles. It was stated that Prabhat Kumar completed his education in 1992 but since then he was Jobless and for that reason he was also not being married. It was pleaded that the petitioner No. 1 had an alternative accommodation in his possession at Lohai road, Farrukhabad and could also acquire other shop, that need of the contesting respondents was bona fide and genuine. It was also pleaded that the contesting respondents were also willing to have shop at Lohai Road, Farrukhabad, owned by respondent No. 1 at the same rent at which the shop in dispute was let out to him if the same was offered to them by petitioner after getting it repaired. It was stated that the contesting respondents asked the petitioner to vacate the shop in dispute to which he did not agree. Plea of comparatively more hardship, in case the release application was rejected, was also taken. The petitioner No. 1 filed his written statement/objection on receipt of notice from the Court of prescribed authority admitting relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties ; but controverting and denying the rest of the allegations made in the release application. It was pleaded that actually the shops in dispute, were two shops on the spot. One was let out at the rent of Rs. 30 per month and other at the rent of Rs. 93. 75 per month, total Rs. 123. 75 per month. Prabhat Kumar son of respondent No. 2 actually had no need for the shop in dispute as he was already engaged in the family business. It was also pleaded that alternative place for setting him in business was available to the landlords at Lohai Road as they had two shops on the said road Sarrafa bazar was the centre of sarrafa business and the shop in dispute was not fit for starting proposed business of furniture and gift articles. The said shop was also not big enough to start the said business. The petitioner had been carrying on sarrafa business in the shop in dispute for last 40 years. He with the consent of landlords made a show room to make the shop more attractive after spending sufficient amount of money. The said business was the only source of his livelihood. He has earned goodwill in the said business. His two sons also sit in the said shop and if he was uprooted from the said shop, he shall be ruined. It was also pleaded that Prabhat Kumar son of respondent No. 2 was carrying independently the business of general merchant in the name and style of Firm Sundar Lal Ram bharose and Company which was situated on the first floor of their general store at Nehru Road. Even at Lohai Road the landlords used to carry on the business of brassware. They actually wanted to enhance the rent of the shop in dispute. In view of these facts there was absolutely no question of any hardship what to say of comparatively greater hardship to the landlords if thei
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
