Back
1995 Supreme(All) 56
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
N.L. GANGULY, J.
Oil And Oil Seeds Exchange Kanpur - Appellant
Versus
XIIth A D J Kanpur - Respondent
Decided on : Jan 11, 1995
P.N. Khare, S.K. Mehrotra, Shashi Kant,
The court interpreted Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 and held that the landlord's need for the shop was genuine and bonafide. It also held that Rule 16 of the Rules framed under the Act is not applicable to business accommodation.
Headnote:
U. P. URBAN BUILDINGS (REGULATION OF LETTING, RENT AND EVICTION) ACT, 1972 - SECTION 21 - RELEASE OF ACCOMMODATION - BONA FIDE NEED OF LANDLORD - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 21 - CONSIDERATION OF COMPARATIVE HARDSHIP AND NEED OF PARTIES - APPLICABILITY OF RULE 16 TO BUSINESS ACCOMMODATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Kanpur Commodity Exchange Limited, challenged the release of a shop in its tenancy to the landlord's son for setting up a ghee business. The petitioner argued that the landlord's need was not genuine and that the release of the shop would cause it greater hardship as its main business had been banned by the Government. The landlord contended that his need was genuine and that the petitioner had permitted unauthorized persons to occupy the shop.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the landlord's need for the shop was genuine and bonafide. It considered the comparative need and hardship of the parties and concluded that the landlord would suffer greater hardship if the accommodation was not released. The court also found that the petitioner's main business had been banned by the Government and that it had permitted unauthorized persons to occupy the shop.
Issues: 1. Whether the landlord's need for the shop was genuine and bonafide? 2. Whether the release of the shop would cause the petitioner greater hardship? 3. Whether Rule 16 of the Rules framed under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 is applicable to business accommodation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the landlord's need for the shop was genuine and bonafide based on the evidence on record and the findings of the lower courts. 2. The court found that the petitioner's main business had been banned by the Government and that it had permitted unauthorized persons to occupy the shop. It concluded that the petitioner would not suffer greater hardship if the shop was released. 3. The court held that Rule 16 of the Rules framed under the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 is not applicable to business accommodation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the release of the shop to the landlord. It directed the petitioner to vacate the premises within three months from the date of the order, subject to furnishing an undertaking to the Prescribed Authority and depositing the rent and other dues.
N. L. Ganguly, J.
1. Kanpur Commodity Exchange Limited previously know as Oil and Oil Seeds Exchange, a registered company having its office at 51/97 New 51/56-A, Collectorganj, Kanpur has filed this writ petition through Sri G. P. Trivedi. The petitioner is tenant of the accommodation owned by contesting respondents No. 3 to 6. An application for release under Section 21 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was moved by the learned counsel for the landlord of the shop in question for setting up respondent No. 6, Sri Arun Kumar, in business of ghee. In the said shop the petitioner had been doing business under the supervision and control of Forward Markets Commission as an institution of the Government of India situate at 100, Marine Drive, Bombay under the provisions of Forward Contract (Regulation) Act, 1952. The petitioner's concern is mainly aimed for regulating the prices of certain commodities from time td time. The ban was admittedly imposed by the Government on the said business of Forward Trading which still exists. It has been stated by the petitioner that at present he has been given licence for trading in gur which also regulates and control the trading of gur at Kanpur market. The respondent has filed sketch map of the shop in question which is a sufficiently big hall. The site plan of the map is annexure C-A 3. The entire premises consist of hall both sides of the said main hall are number of godowns and one office room. Tenancy of the petitioner is for the hall and one office room towards the rear end. The godowns are in tenancy of other tenants. The respondents pleaded that the shop which is in shape of hall was bonafide required for conducting business by landlord's son. The landlord pleaded that his need was pressing, genuine and bonafide. The respondents also pleaded that the business conducted by the petitioner was banned by the Government and the petitioner has permitted other unauthorised person to occupy the hall in question for carrying on their business.
2. The Prescribed Authority after considering evidence on record and hearing held that the need of the landlord for release was bonafide and genuine. After recording such a finding, the Prescribed Authority instead of releasing the shop (room) in question released the rear office room and godowns towards the extreme interior portion which is clear from Annexure CA-3. The godown as shown is the godown of Kanpur Oil and Oil Seeds Exchange Ltd. and the room shown is of the Kanpur Broker Association Ltd. The release application of the landlord was thus partly allowed by the Prescribed Authority. The petitioner and the respondent-landlord both were aggrieved by the judgment of the Prescribed Authority. They filed two appeals separately before the District Judge. Both the appeals were heard together by the XII Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and were decided by a common judgment (Annexure 5 to the writ petition ).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the landlord is a very rich person of the city who owned number of buildings and also carry on number of businesses in the city. The need of building for setting up the son of the landlord was neither genuine nor bonafide. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the finding about bona fide need of the landlord arrived at by the Prescribed Authority was wholly perverse and no reasonable person would arrive at such a conclusion. He also submit ted that for carrying the business, accommodation in the building, released by the Prescribed Authority in favour of the landlord was sufficient and there is no further necessity of releasing the hall in question under the tenancy of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed the entire judgment of the lower appellate court. I have carefully examined the same and have also perused the annexure placed by the learned counsel.
3. The lower appellate court found as a fact that the landlord's son, opposite party No. 6, was a young
