Back
2010 Supreme(All) 1966
2010 (81) ALR 172
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Devendra Pratap Singh,J.
Abrar Ahmad - Petitioner
Versus
Jogendra Singh - Respondent
WRIT - A No. - 30189 of 2010
Decided on: 28.5.2010
Petitioner Counsel:- Amit Krishan
Respondent Counsel:- K. Ajit
The main legal point established is that under U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, a landlord's bonafide need for the disputed premises can justify the allowance of a release application, especially when the tenant fails to provide evidence to counter the landlord's claims.
Headnote:
Release Application - U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 - The court allowed the release application filed by the landlord against the tenant based on the landlord's bonafide need for the disputed shop and the tenant's failure to prove that the construction was of a subsequent period.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent landlord filed a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, alleging that the petitioner tenant was not doing any permanent business from the disputed premises and that the landlord needed the shop for enlarging his business of medicines.
Finding of the Court:
Both the courts below found that the landlord's business had increased manifold and was suffering due to lack of space, and that the shop was constructed prior to 26.4.1985, thus allowing the release application based on the landlord's bonafide need and the tenant's failure to prove otherwise.
Issues: The issues involved the applicability of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, the landlord's bonafide need for the disputed shop, and the tenant's failure to prove the construction period of the shop.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Act was applicable, the landlord had a bonafide need for the shop, and the tenant failed to provide evidence to refute the landlord's claim regarding the construction period of the shop.
Final Decision: The court rejected the writ petition and directed the tenant to hand over peaceful and vacant possession to the landlord, along with depositing the entire rent uptil a specified date, failing which the tenant would be liable for eviction.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondent caveator.
2. This petition is directed against concurrent orders dated 9.10.2009 and 20.4.2010 by which the release application filed by the respondent landlord against the petitioner tenant has been allowed by both the courts below.
3. The respondent landlord filed a release application under Section 21 (1)(a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 with the allegation that the petitioner was a tenant of the disputed shop at Rs.600/- per month adjacent to which the landlord was running a medical store by the name of "Parvind Medical Store" for carrying out his business of medicines. It was further stated that his business had increased manifold and thus it became impossible to run his business from the small shop and therefore he needed the disputed shop which is adjacent to his existing shop and after removing the intervening walls, he would enlarge his shop. It was further stated that the petitioner was not doing any permanent business from the disputed premises and if his application is rejected, he would suffer greater hardship.
4. The petitioner tenant contested the application admitting tenancy but denying the need and stating that he is carrying out his electric repair business from the disputed shop which is the only source of livelihood and that the building was constructed after 1985 and therefore, the Act was not applicable.
5. After the parties had led their evidence, both the courts below have recorded categorical findings that the business of the landlord which had increased manifold is suffering as full stock of the medicines cannot be accommodated in the shop being used by him. It went on to find that the shop was constructed prior to 26.4.1985 and thus the provision of the Act was fully applicable. After recording findings of bonafide need and on the question of hardship, the application has been allowed.
6. It is urged that the courts below erred in law in holding that the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 was applicable even though the landlord failed to prove by any cogent evidence the date of its construction.
7. It is admitted that none of the parties had filed any assessment orders with regard to the disputed shop. The landlord had filed documentary evidence in the nature of permission for raising constructions, electricity connection etc. to prove that the shop was constructed prior to 26.4.1985, which was believed by the courts below. Apart from a bald allegation, the petitioner failed to bring any authentic evidence on record to show that the construction was of subsequent period. Accordingly, the argument is not sustainable.
8. It is then urged that the landlord had other vacant accommodation but yet the courts below have wrongly held that he had bonafide need of the disputed shop.
9. The counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any substantive evidence to show that the landlord had other vacant accommodation available to him and, therefore, both the courts below were justified in recording the bonafide need of the landlord for the disputed shop.
10. No other point has been urged.
11. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.
12. After the writ petition had been dismissed, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instruction of his client, states that a reasonable time may be granted by which he will handover the peaceful and vacant possession to the respondent landlord.
13. In view of the aforesaid undertaking, the petitioner tenant is directed to handover peaceful and vacant possession to the respondent landlord on or before 23.8.2010 without creating any third party rights. He is further directed to deposit the entire rent uptil 23.8.2010 within a month from today. In case of default of deposit of rent, the petitioner shall be liable for eviction forthwith. The respondent landlord would be entitled to realise of the said amount without security.
