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

2005 Supreme(All) 1108

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
S.U. Khan, J.
Mangroo Ram
Versus
District Judge
C.M.W.P. 17941 of 1985
Decided On : 04 July 2005
C. M. W. P. 17941 Of 1985

Advocates:
B.D.Mandhyan, C.M.YADAV, DIVYA ASTHANA, G.N.CHAUHAN, R.C.SRIVASTAV, S.C.Yadav, Satish Mandhyan, V.K.Jaiswal, VINOD SINHA,

The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of bona fide need and comparative hardship in eviction/release proceedings under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

Headnote:

bona fide need - eviction/release proceedings - U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, Section 21 - G. C. Kapoor v. A. D. J., AIR 2002 SC 200 - B. C. Bhutada v. G. R. Mundada, AIR2003 SC 2713 - Arjun Singh v. M. Kumar, AIR1964 SC 993 - [Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court]

Fact of the Case:

The writ petition arises from eviction/release proceedings initiated by the landlady on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The property in dispute is a shop, and the landlady sought to start a business of selling sundry items with the help of her son.

Finding of the Court:

The prescribed authority rejected the release application, but the District Judge allowed the appeal and granted the release application. The court found that the landlady's need was bona fide and that the tenant did not show efforts to search for an alternative shop, tilting the balance of comparative hardship in favor of the landlord.

Issues: The issues revolved around the landlady's bona fide need for the shop, the tenant's efforts to search for an alternative shop, and the approach of the prescribed authority in understanding the concept of bona fide need and comparative hardship.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of bona fide need and comparative hardship, citing the Supreme Court authorities in G. C. Kapoor v. A. D. J., AIR 2002 SC 200 and B. C. Bhutada v. G. R. Mundada, AIR2003 SC 2713 to support its decision.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with costs, and the tenant was granted six months to vacate the shop, with the requirement to deposit damages for use and occupation.

S. U. KHAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by tenant Mangroo Ram since deceased and survived by legal representatives and arises out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlady respondent no. 2 Smt. Lakshman Devi since deceased and survived by her son Govind Jaiswal on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The release application was registered as Misc. Case No. 4 of 1982 on the file of Prescribed authority/munsif, Mirzapur. prescribed authority rejected the release application on 25. 8. 1984. Against the said order landlady filed Rent Misc. Appeal No. 5 of 1984 before District Judge, Mirzapur. The learned district Judge allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the prescribed authority and allowed the release application through judgment and order dated 17. 10. 1985, hence this writ petition.

( 2 ) PROPERTY in dispute is a shop. It was stated in the release application that landlady appellant had one son aged about 11 years (who has now been substituted at the place of landlady respondent No. 2) and that out of five daughters of the landlady four had been married and the fifth one was suffering from Polio and was 14 years old at the time of filing of release application. It was stated by landlady that she was earning her livelihood by cleaning and washing utensils in the houses of others. In the face of these facts, if found to be proved, no court should reject the release application. It was also stated by the landlady that she was suffering from depression and doctor had advised her not to do any strenuous work. She stated that she proposed to carry on the business of selling sundry items from the shop in dispute with the help of her son. It was also stated that husband of the landlady till his death which occurred in 1973 was carrying on the business in the shop in dispute, however, after his death the shop was let out to the tenant petitioner. The fact that landlady was earning through cleaning utensils was not denied. The prescribed authority held that due to high blood pressure it would be more difficult for the landlady to sit at the shop than to clean utensils at the houses of others. This approach is ludicrous nay ridiculous. The prescribed authority further held that if landlady was in a position to start the business from the shop in dispute then she would not have let that out after the death of her husband. This approach is also utterly illegal. Landlady had also pleaded that she had become patient of high blood pressure which was additional reason for starting business. Moreover in the year 1973 when husband of landlady died, her son was only two years of age, hence it was not possible to take his assistance in running the shop. In the year 1982 when release application was filed the son had become 11 years of age, hence he could assist his mother in running the shop.

( 3 ) IT has been held by Supreme Court in G. C. Kapoor v. A. D. J. , AIR 2002 SC 200, that it is not necessary for the landlord to show that he has got sufficient means to start the proposed business in the release matters on the ground of bona fide need. Moreover business of selling sundry items on the small scale may be started by small funds also.

( 4 ) THE least which can be said regarding the approach of the prescribed authority is that he did not understand even the basic meaning of bona fide need and comparative hardship. The prescribed authority was labouring under the misconception that unless the need of the landlady is so acute that she cannot survive unless shop in dispute is released, it cannot be said to be bona fide.

( 5 ) AS far as comparative hardship is concerned, tenant did not show that he made any efforts to search for alternative shop after filing of the release application. In view of the Supreme Court authority in B. C. Bhutada v. G. R. Mundada, AIR2003 SC 2713 , jt2003 (1 )SC 438 , 2003 (1 )SCALE147 , (2003 )2 SCC320 , 2003 (1 )UJ726 (SC ), this itself







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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