Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sunita Agarwal, J.
S.U. Ashram - Appellant
Versus
ADJ - Respondent
Writ - A No. 26281 of 1993
Decided On : 21-01-2016
Delay Condonation - Restoration Application - U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 - Summary of Acts and Sections: U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, Section 21(8) - The judgment discusses the delay condonation and restoration application in the context of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It highlights the provisions of Section 21(8) and the waiver of rights under the Act. The court's decision is influenced by the interpretation of the Act and the waiver of the tenant's rights.
Fact of the Case:
The court considered a writ petition challenging the release of a shop under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The petitioner, a Public Sector undertaking, contested the release application on the ground of personal need of the landlord.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the release application was maintainable and the petitioner had waived the plea regarding the maintainability of the release application. It also held that the tenant failed to establish comparative hardship and no interference was required in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the release application, waiver of rights under the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, and comparative hardship of the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the tenant had waived the plea regarding the maintainability of the release application and failed to establish comparative hardship, leading to no interference in the concurrent findings of fact.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to vacate the shop within a specified time and pay a revised monthly rent.
Sunita Agarwal, J. –
Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 337196 of 2014
2. Delay in filing the restoration application has been sufficiently explained.
The delay condonation application is allowed.
3. Delay condoned.
Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J. - Civil Misc. Restoration Application No. 337204 of 2014
The reason given for non appearance of the learned counsel for the appellant is sufficient.
2. The restoration application is allowed. The order dated 7.7.2006 is hereby recalled.
3. The writ petition is restored to its original number.
Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J. - The writ petition is restored to its original number.
2. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.
3. Heard Shri K.M. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Deeba Siddiqui, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord.
4. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders of release of the shop in question which exists in a place known as Mandawar situated near the District Headquarters of Bijnor. The release application was filed in the year 1989 on the ground that the applicant-landlord required the shop in question for his business. It was categorically stated in paragraph 2 of the release application that the applicant landlord completed his education from Agra University and thereafter made an effort to get an employment but had failed and he wanted to start his business in the shop in question. In paragraph 5 of the release application, it is stated that the applicant landlord was not doing any business from the shop at a place known as Chandak nor his family reside at that place. He wanted to do grocery/Kirana business in the shop in question for his livelihood and of his family. The shop was purchased in June, 1980 and six month's notice as required under the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was given on 6.12.1988 asking the opposite party to vacate the shop in question for the need of the landlord.
5. In paragraph 8A of the release application it is stated that the opposite party had taken another shop in the nearby market place which belonged to one Shri Narender Verma son of Shri Hori Lal Verma and was using it as a store for this shop. The opposite party tenant thus could get another shop in the locality for its business.
6. In the written statement, the opposite party though accepted landlord-tenant relationship between them but contested on the ground that there existed two shops at Mandawar main Bazar, out of which one shop was being used by the father and brother of the landlord for their business whereas another shop was vacant which could be used by the landlord for his business.
7. The Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority both have recorded categorical findings of fact that no other shop was available in Mandawar where the landlord wanted to start his business. One shop which was stated to be vacant was in possession of his father and he was using it as a godown.
8. On the plea taken by the tenant that the applicant landlord was doing business of grocery in a shop at Chandak Railway Station, the finding is that there was categorical denial in the release application and further the tenant could not prove otherwise. Certain photographs produced before the Court below were disbelieved on the ground that they were not sufficient to prove the plea of the tenant. Affidavit paper No. 42Ga filed by the landlord was considered to record this finding.
9. On comparative hardship, after considering of the provisions of Rule 16(a), it was held that the opposite party-tenant could get another shop. It was also found that admittedly the tenant had taken another shop on rent in the near-by locality for storage of the good of the disputed shop but no effort was made to get an alternative accommodation. Weighing the likely hardship of the parties, the Courts below had recorded that the likely hardship of the landlord would be more than the likely hardship of the tenant.
10. Challenging these finding, the first submission of
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
