Back
2018 Supreme(All) 1754
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Vivek Kumar Birla, J.
Gurubhan Singh – Appellant
Versus
Ashutosh Mishra – Respondent
Writ-A No. 15362 of 2018
Decided On : 03-08-2018
For the Petitioners: Atul Dayal, Vikram Bhalla.
For the Respondent: Raj Kumar Tiwari.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's interpretation and application of Section 21(1)(a) of the Act 13 of 1972 in determining the landlord-tenant relationship and the bona-fide need for release of premises.
Headnote:
Rent Control - Release Application - Section 21(1)(a) of the Act 13 of 1972 - [The judgment discusses the application filed under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act 13 of 1972 for the release of premises on the ground of bona-fide need. The court analyzed the ownership of the premises, the relationship of landlord and tenant, the disputed Will deeds, and the comparative hardship. The court found in favor of the plaintiff-respondent and allowed the release application.]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff-respondent filed a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act 13 of 1972, claiming ownership of the premises and a bona-fide need to live separately from his mother and wife. The defendant-petitioner contested the suit, disputing the ownership and the bona-fide need.
Finding of the Court:
The court found a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, upheld the plaintiff-respondent's bona-fide need, and found no effort by the defendant-petitioner to search for alternative accommodation. The release application was allowed.
Issues: The issues included the relationship of landlord and tenant, the bona-fide need, and comparative hardship.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the establishment of the landlord-tenant relationship, the genuine need of the plaintiff-respondent to live separately, and the lack of effort by the defendant-petitioner to find alternative accommodation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, upheld the findings of the lower courts, and provided conditions for the tenant-petitioner to hand over possession of the premises to the landlord-opposite party.
Vivek Kumar Birla, J.
1. Heard Sri Atul Dayal, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner and Sri Kushal Kant holding brief of Sri Raj Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent.
2. At the very outset, Sri Kushal Kant, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submitted that he does not want to file any counter affidavit.
3. Present petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.4.2016 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court/Prescribed Authority, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Case No. 8 of 2009, Ashutosh Mishra vs. Gurbhan Singh and the order dated 18.5.2018 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 15, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Appeal No. 49 of 2016.
4. By the impugned judgment dated 30.4.2016 the release application filed by the plaintiff-respondent was allowed and the appeal filed by the defendant-petitioner was dismissed by the lower appellate court vide judgment dated 18.5.2018. The release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed on the ground that the petitioner is the owner of the premises no. 128/B/13 (Plot No. 55, Block-B, Scheme No. 2), Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur measuring area 275 sq. yds. It was asserted that the original landlord of the aforesaid premises was Ram Dulari W/o Devi Shankar Mishra S/o Gaya Prasad Mishra. They purchase the property from Kanpur Development Board vide registered sale deed dated 26.9.1957, on the basis whereof name was recorded as owner in the records of Kanpur Mahapalika, Kanpur. After purchase, they constructed two tin-sheds rooms on the same, however, due to death of Devi Shankar Mishra on 29.8.1968 his widow Ram Dulari could not make any further construction. Devi Shankar Mishra had executed one Will deed dated 16.10.1961 in favour of Smt. Ram Dulari. Subsequently, Smt. Ram Dulari executed a registered Will deed dated 13.8.1981 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent herein. After death of Ram Dulari on 14.5.1998 the plaintiff-respondent became the owner of the premises and his name was recorded in the records of Kanpur Development Authority. His name was also recorded in the record of Kanpur Nagar Nigam on 15.12.1999.
5. Plaint case is that father of the present defendant-petitioner late Babu Lal was the tenant of two tin-sheds rooms upto Rs. 20/- per month and at one point of time he had deposited certain amount in the local authority and that amount was deducted from the rent payable by him. Smt. Ram Dulari use to live permanently in house B-493 Motipura Yojana, Near Balaji Dehat, Jaipur, Rajasthan and therefore, Babu Lal used to sent money orders. Taking benefit of the fact that she was living outside, late Babu Lal raised certain tin-sheds construction over the premises and after death of Babu Lal defendant-petitioner herein has acquired the tenancy. In the year 2003, the plaintiff-respondent initiated proceedings for declaration of vacancy, which was refused by the Rent Control Eviction Officer, Kanpur Nagar vide its order dated 4.9.2004, against which writ petition was filed, which is still pending before this Court. It was further asserted that at present the plaintiff-respondent is living in House No. 65/198, Moti Mohal, Kanpur Nagar alongwith his mother and due to strained relationship between his mother and his wife he wants to live in the premises in question separately. It was claimed that in his family apart from him, his wife and two daughters, cousin brother and his wife and brother-in-law and his wife are also living and therefore, it was submitted that his brother, who although working in Delhi but frequently come to Kanpur, therefore, the need is bona-fide.
6. The suit was contested by the defendant-petitioner. It was admitted that Devi Shankar Mishra purchased the property on 26.9.1957 from Kanpur Development Board. It was also admitted that Devi Shankar Mishra died on 29.8.1968. According to his Will dated 16.10.1961 Smt. Ram Dulari became owner of the premises. Rest of the contents we
