Back
2014 Supreme(All) 3120
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Vidyawati Asthana & 2 Others - Appellant
Versus
Additional District Judge & 3 Others - Respondent
Writ - A No. - 20723 of 2014
Decided On : 16-04-2014
For the Petitioner:- Sudhanshu Srivastava, Manoj Kumar
For the Respondent:- C.B. Gupta,Jai Bahadur Singh
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of subsequent events and their impact on the relief claimed by the parties, as well as the legal provisions related to the landlord's requirement and hardship.
Headnote:
Tenants' - Tenants' Writ Petition - U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, Section 21(1)(a) - 1972 Act, Section 21(1)(a) - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the landlord's release application filed under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. It considered the need of the disputed building, the nature of the building, and the permission granted for professional use within a residential building. The court also referred to various legal provisions and interpretations related to subsequent events and their impact on the landlord's requirement, hardship, and the relief claimed by the parties.
Fact of the Case:
This is a tenants' writ petition related to a landlord's release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The tenants had brought certain subsequent events before the Lower Appellate Court, but no finding was recorded. The court found that the subsequent events did not constitute a fact with substantial consequence in the matter.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the alleged subsequent events did not satisfy the ingredients of subsequent events that would change the circumstances significantly to render the release application infructuous. It held that the Lower Appellate Court rightly ignored these facts, and the judgments of the courts below, recording concurrent findings in favor of the landlord, were neither shown to be illegal nor bad in law or facts, justifying interference of the Court.
Issues: The issues revolved around the consideration of subsequent events and their impact on the landlord's requirement, hardship, and the relief claimed by the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of subsequent events and their impact on the relief claimed by the parties, as well as the legal provisions related to the landlord's requirement and hardship.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the tenants' writ petition, finding no reason to interfere with the judgments of the courts below.
Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar, Advocate for petitioners and Sri C.B. Gupta, Advocate for respondent no. 3.
2. This is a tenants' writ petition, who have lost in both the courts below. Landlord's release Application No. 01 of 1998, filed under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972"), in respect of accommodation in question, was allowed by Prescribed Authority vide order dated 06.02.2006 and thereagainst petitioners-tenants' Rent Appeal No. 10 of 2006 was dismissed by 10th Additional District Judge, Budaun vide judgment dated 25.03.2014.
3. It is contended that petitioners brought certain subsequent events before Lower Appellate Court which have been noticed in its judgment but no finding has been recorded. My attention is drawn to impugned judgment dated 25.03.2014, internal page 36-37, which reads as under:
"On a perusal of file it is found that the applicant's son Tanmay Rastogi is carrying on his own dental clinic in a portion of his uncle Dr. Praval Rastogi with his permission and is residing in the residential building of his grand father Shree Harishchandra Rastogi with his permission for the time being. Shree Tejendra Asthana has filed affidavit paper no. 104C in the appellate court in which he has deposed that Shree Harishchandra Rastogi and Smt. Premlata Rastogi and, Praval Rastogi has died and the wife of Praval Rastogi who was living in the residential accommodation of his grandfather and grand mother with their permission has become the owner of the half portion of the residential building of his grandfather late Shree Harishchandra Rastogi. Thus the permission has come to an end and the need of the disputed building has come to an end and the need of the disputed building has also come to and end. In rebuttal of the affidavit 104c, affidavit of Tanmay Rastogi paper no. 117c/2 to 117c/5 and affidavit of Shree Rajeev Rastogi paper no. 117c/6 to 117c/9 has been filed. In both the affidavits it has been stated that on the death of Shree Harishchandra Rastogi and Smt. Prem Lata Rastogi, Dr. Tanmay Rastogi or Rajeev Rastogi has not become the sole owner of the property of late Shree Harishchandra Rastogi and Smt. Premlata Rastogi but there are others co-sharers too. Wife of Shree Praval Rastogi, Praval Rastogi's son and daughter, Rajeev Rastogi and brother Vaibhav Rastogi all inherited the property of Shree Harishchandra Rastogi and Smt. Premlata Rastogi jointly so permission given by them to Dr. Tanmay Rastogi has not come to an end. There is no force in the contention of counsel for the appellants that consultation chamber comes with in the category of professional use and the building in dispute is residential building so it cannot be released for the purpose of operation a consultation chamber as per the provisions of U.P. Act No. 13/72, because as per the evidence on record the building is needed for residence of Tanmay Rastogi in which Tanmay Rastogi will reside and in one room of the disputed building he will open a consultation chamber. Opening of consultation chamber in a residential building does change the nature of residential building. It has been held by the Mysore High Court, in Mrs. Colaco Versus Urban D' Silva 1970 Rent Control Reporter, 733: AIR 1970 Mys 297, 299 that "Even though a house is taken for residential purpose, it does not prevent the person from carrying on his profession in the said premises during his spare time as has been pointed out by Madras High Court. Simply because a lawyer meets his clients in his house and transacts some some legal work, or doctor sees some patients in his house, a residential house is not converted into a non residential one."
4. Sri Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that no finding in respect of above subsequent events have been recorded by Lower Appellate Court. He placed reliance on this Court's decision in M/s Kanhaiya M
