Back
2011 Supreme(All) 1607
2011 (87) ALR 464
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Anil Kumar,J.
Smt.Mala Devi
Vs.
Additional District Judge Lucknow And 2 Others
RENT CONTROL No. - 61 of 2006
Decided on : 30 /05/2011
S.C.Shukla
C.S.C.,Siddharth Dhaon
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to consider the genuineness and bonafide nature of the landlady's need for the shop, as well as the tenant's efforts to seek alternate accommodation, in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Act no. XIII of 1972.
Headnote:
Release Application - Shop Ownership Dispute - U.P. Act no. XIII of 1972 - Section 21(1)(a)
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a dispute over the release of a shop owned by the petitioner. The petitioner, a landlady, sought release of the shop under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act no. XIII of 1972, citing the need to set up a business to support her family and her brother-in-law's family. The tenant, respondent no. 3, opposed the release, claiming that the landlady's need was not genuine and that she had other shops available for her business.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the landlady's need for the shop was genuine and bonafide, considering her family's financial situation and her intention to start a beauty parlor. The court also noted that the tenant had not made efforts to search for alternate accommodation, supporting the landlady's claim of genuine need.
Issues: The main issues involved the genuineness of the landlady's need for the shop and the comparative hardship faced by the tenant if evicted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the landlady's need for the shop should be considered genuine and bonafide, as per the provisions of U.P. Act no. XIII of 1972. The court also highlighted the tenant's lack of effort in seeking alternate accommodation as a factor supporting the landlady's claim.
Final Decision: The court set aside the appellate authority's order and remanded the matter back for further consideration, emphasizing the need for a factual determination of the ownership and possession of the shops involved.
Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Sudhir Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Siddharth Dhaon, learned counsel for respondents.
2. By means of present writ petition, petitioner challenged order dated 29.05.2006 passed by Additional District Judge, Lucknow in Rent Appeal No. 51 of 2005.
3. Facts in brief as submitted by learned counsel for petitioner are that controversy involved in present case relates to shop situated in House No. 512/102 at 7th Lane, Nishatganj, Police Station Mahanagar, Lucknow, petitioner (Smt. Mala Devi) is owner/landlady. She purchased the House in question by means of registered Sale deed dated 16.08.1993 from it's erstwhile owner and respondent no. 3/Mohd. Haneef is tenant of shop in the said House since 1975, after purchase, landlady moved an application for release the shop in question on 12th July, 2004 (Annexure no. 2 to the writ petition), under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act no. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred as 'Act').
4. In the said application, need as set up by the landlady is that her income as well as income of her husband is not sufficient to meet out the livelihood of her family members as well as family members of her Dewar who are also dependent on them and in order to increase the same, she wants the shop in question.
5. In Paragraph 5 of release application, details of her family members mentioned are reproduced hereinbelow :-
1.Applicant herself
2.Sri Sher Singh husband of applicant doing service.
3.Km. Nidhi aged about years, daughter of marriageable age.
4.Km. Preeti aged about years, daughter of marriageable age.
5.Abhaya kumar aged about years, son, student of class B.A. Part III in Lucknow University, Lucknow.
6.Pradeep Kumar aged about 40 years, husband's real younger brother, jobless and dependent on applicant's family.
7.Smt. Uma Devi wife of Pradeep Kumar-house lady
8.Km. Deepika aged about 16 years daughter of Pradeep Kumar, student of Class X.
9.Ajaya Kumar aged about 15 years, son of Pradeep Kumar, Car Machenic but jobless for want of accommodation.
10.Km. Reenu daughter of Pradeep Kumar aged about 14 years
11.Aviral son of Pradeep Kumar aged about 11 years, student of Class VI.
6. Accordingly, a P.A. Case No. 51 of 2004 (Smt. Mala Devi Vs. Mohd. Haneef) registered before the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge, Senior Divison, Mohanlalganj, Lucknow.
7. On 16.12.2004, written statement filed on behalf of tenant/respondent no. 3 inter alia stating therein that in the shop in question, he is running a business in the name and style of 'Madras Hair Dresser' since 1975 and on the income, getting from the said business, he as well as his three sons are depend. Further, in the written statement in Paragraph 16, it is pleaded that in the building in which the shop in question is situated, there are four more shops, out of which two remain locked, if applicant/landlady intends to do any business then she can do it from those vacant shops. It has also been pleaded that petitioner already filed a SCC Suit (registered as SCC Suit No. 187 of 2003) pending in the court of Judge Small Causes, Lucknow for recovery of rent, damages and ejectment, but when she was not able to get success in the said matter, present case filed, so need of landlady is neither bonafide nor genuine, application for release of the shop in question moved under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 only in order to evict the tenant/respondent no. 3 and get the higher rent of the shop in question.
8. Before the Prescribed Authority on behalf of petitioner/landlady, evidence through affidavits filed namely of her, Sri Girish Chandra Pant, and Dinesh Nath Goswami who are the resident of same. On the basis of said affidavits, it has been brought on record that there are only three shops under the ownership of landlady, not five shops as pleaded in the written statement.
9. On behalf of tenant/respondent no. 3, affidavits of Mohd. Haneef (tenant), as well as Dilawar Husain filed. On the basis
