Back
High Court of Allahabad
A.N. Dikshita, J.
Habib-Ul-Rahman – Appellant
Versus
1st Addl. District Judge Bijnor – Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ No. 1019 of 1983
Decided On : Jul 29, 1986
U.P. URBAN BUILDINGS (REGULATION OF LETTING, RENT AND EVICTION) ACT - SECTION 21 - RELEASE OF SHOP - BONA FIDE NEED - COMPARATIVE HARDSHIP - INTERPRETATION OF RULE 16 (2) (D) - TECHNICAL EDUCATION - MEDICAL EDUCATION - JURISDICTION OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE:
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant of a shop in Bijnor, challenged the order of the 1st Additional District Judge, Bijnor, allowing the appeal of the landlords and releasing the shop in their favor. The landlords had filed an application under section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, seeking release of the shop for the bona fide requirement of one of the landlords' sons, Pradip Kumar, who had completed his medical education and wanted to open a clinic. The Prescribed Authority had dismissed the application, finding that Pradip Kumar's need was neither genuine nor bona fide.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the 1st Additional District Judge had erred in law in allowing the appeal and releasing the shop in favor of the landlords. The court found that Pradip Kumar had not completed his technical education as required under Rule 16 (2) (d) of the Rules framed under the Act, and that medical education did not fall within the ambit of technical education. The court also found that Pradip Kumar already had three shops in his possession, and that the need for a clinic or a business by opening a Chemists and Druggists shop stood satisfied. The court further found that the comparative hardship that would be caused to the petitioner by eviction from the shop was greater than the hardship that would be caused to the landlords by denying them the use of the shop.
Issues: 1. Whether the 1st Additional District Judge had erred in law in allowing the appeal and releasing the shop in favor of the landlords. 2. Whether Pradip Kumar had completed his technical education as required under Rule 16 (2) (d) of the Rules framed under the Act. 3. Whether medical education fell within the ambit of technical education. 4. Whether Pradip Kumar already had three shops in his possession, and whether the need for a clinic or a business by opening a Chemists and Druggists shop stood satisfied. 5. Whether the comparative hardship that would be caused to the petitioner by eviction from the shop was greater than the hardship that would be caused to the landlords by denying them the use of the shop.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the 1st Additional District Judge had erred in law in allowing the appeal and releasing the shop in favor of the landlords because: (a) Pradip Kumar had not completed his technical education as required under Rule 16 (2) (d) of the Rules framed under the Act; (b) medical education did not fall within the ambit of technical education; (c) Pradip Kumar already had three shops in his possession, and the need for a clinic or a business by opening a Chemists and Druggists shop stood satisfied; and (d) the comparative hardship that would be caused to the petitioner by eviction from the shop was greater than the hardship that would be caused to the landlords by denying them the use of the shop. 2. The court interpreted Rule 16 (2) (d) of the Rules framed under the Act to mean that the completion of technical education must be subsequent to the letting out of the building, and that the person seeking release of the shop must not be employed in Government service and must want to engage in self-employment.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashed the order of the 1st Additional District Judge, and remanded the case back to the 1st Additional District Judge for a fresh decision in light of the observations made by the court.
A.N. Dikshita, J.
1. BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 11-11-1982 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Bijnor, allowing the appeal preferred by respondent nos. 2 to 8 against the judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority dated 2 -2-1982 dismissing their application under section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act (Act No. XIII of 1972) (hereinafter called the Act) and thus releasing the shop in their favour and granting six months' time to the petitioner to vacate it.
2. THE facts relevant to the instant controversy are that the petitioner is a tenant of a shop at Ghantaghar, Sadar Bazar, Bijnor, since 1955 wherein a retail cloth business is being run by him in the name and style of 'Fine Cloth House'. Prior to the petitioner this shop was occupied by one Evaz Ali who was doing betel and tobacoo business therefrom. THE shop was owned by one Ghasi Ram alias Ram Kumar (hereinafter called Ghasi Ram) who stayed at Saharanpur where he was in employment of a Cane Society. THE family of Ghasi Ram used to reside at Ambar Talab, Roorkee, the place of the residence of his in-laws. Ghasi Ram had an ancestral house situate in Mohalla Acharjan, Bijnor, where his brother Surendra Kumar, who was doing Arhat business, used to live while Ghasi Ram continued to stay at Saharanpur. Ghasi Ram expired in the district of Saharanpur sometime in the year 1972 leaving the respondent nos. 2 to 8 as his heirs.
3. THE landlords respondents nos. 2 to 8 filed an application under section 21 of the Act on 19-12-1977 before the Prescribed Authority, Bijnor, for the release of the shop which was in the tenancy and occupation of the petitioner on the ground that the said shop was required for the bona fide and genuine requirement of respondents nos. 3 and 4, Pradip Kumar and Dilip Kumar sons of Ghasi Ram. It was stated in the application filed under section 21 of the Act that Pradip Kumar, respondent no. 3, was a student of 4th year in Shri Sanatak Ayurvedic College, Rohtak, Haryana, and would be eligible to practise in June 1979 and he required the shop in dispute for the purpose of opening a clinic. It was further stated that Dilip Kumar, respondent no. 4, who was appearing as a private candidate in the Intermediate Examination but being poor in studies he too intended to establish himself in some business from the said shop. This application which was filed as early as 19-12-1977 was got amended incorporating that Pradip Kumar who had been serving in the Government Hospital as an Intern would be completing his training on 22-6-1980.
4. THE petitioner filed a written statement and vehemently denied the averments as contained in the application for the release of the shop. It was categorically stated on behalf of the petitioner that the alleged need of the landlords was neither genuine nor bona fide as both Pradip Kumar and Dilip Kumar were permanently residing at Roorkee and in any case had no intention to settle at Bijnor nor do they propose to start any clinic or business in the shop in dispute. THE petitioner strenuously asserted that the respondents nos. 2 to 8 were interested in disposing of the property including the shop and were already having negotiations with some parties inclusive of Chaudhari Karan Singh of Jhalara and Chaudhari Shaukin Singh of Moghalpura. It was stated that the eviction of the petitioner was being sought to deliver vacant possession to the prospective purchaser which would fetch the respondents nos. 2 to 8 a higher price.
Consequent to the amendment of the release application by respondents nos. 2 to 8 an additional written statement was filed by the petitioner. The averments after the amendment of the release application that Pradip Kumar was living in a rented house was denied and the petitioner alleged that Pradip Kumar was in fact residing
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
