Back
2018 Supreme(All) 1815
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sangeeta Chandra, J.
Smt. Bhupinder Kaur - Appellant
Vs.
Rajendra Shukla - Respondent
Writ A No. 11195 of 2018
Decided On : 04-05-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Pradeep Kumar Sinha
For the Respondent: Dharmendra Pratap Singh
The landlord's bonafide need for accommodation, as established before the lower courts, will not be interfered with unless there is perversity in the findings or the lower courts have acted without jurisdiction.
Headnote:
Writ of Certiorari - Landlord-Tenant Dispute - U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 - Section 21(1)(a) - Section 21(1)(b)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to quash the orders of the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Court in a rent dispute case. The landlord filed a Release Application citing the need for accommodation for residential and commercial purposes, which was contested by the tenant.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the landlord's application was filed under Section 21(1)(a) for bonafide need of residence and establishing his sons in business, not under Section 21(1)(b) for dilapidated condition of the house. The Court upheld the concurrent findings of fact regarding the landlord's bonafide need for accommodation.
Issues: Genuine need for accommodation, alternative residential options, jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Court
Ratio Decidendi: The landlord is the best judge of his need, and the Court will not interfere in concurrent findings of fact regarding bonafide need unless there is perversity in the findings or the lower courts have acted without jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
Sangeeta Chandra, J.
This petition has been filed by the petitioners praying for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 14.9.2010 passed by the Prescribed Authority in Rent Case No. 22 of 2007 and for quashing of the order dated 1.2.2018 passed by the Appellate Court - learned District Judge in Rent Appeal No. 95 of 2010.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Release Application was filed by the landlord after purchase of the house no. 110/132 Ram Krishna Nagar, Kanpur in which the petitioner was a sitting tenant in 2007. In Release Application, the respondent/landlord had stated his need for the accommodation both for residential and commercial purpose.
3. It was the respondent/landlord case that in his individual family, there were four members i.e. he himself, his wife and two grown up sons. He needed to establish his grown up sons in separate business of hosiery.
4. At the time of filing of the application, the landlord was living in the house of his father - Shashi Kant Shukla. Shashi Kant Shukla had three other sons and all sons were grown up and married and they had grown up children also. The house in which Shashi Kant Shukla and his family were residing, namely house no. 109/220 Jawahar Nagar, Kanpur was in sufficient for the need of nineteen members of the family, as the ground floor of the said building was completely commercial. The first floor had seven rooms and the second floor had five rooms. All four sons had grown up children, therefore four kitchens were in existence also in the said first and second floor. The third floor was not being used for residential purpose and it had only a tin shed.
5. It was submitted by the respondent/landlord in the Release Application that there were seven daughters of Shashi Kant Shukla. All of whom were married to highly placed persons enjoying very good status in the society and all had children also. There was a dire need of additional accommodation in the house owned by Shashi Kant Shukla and therefore Shashi Kant Shukla had asked the respondent/landlord to buy his own house and shift his family to the said house. The respondent/landlord had therefore bought house no. 110/132 Ram Krishna Nagar, Kanpur with a sole purpose of shifting his family to the said house and also establishing his sons in independent business.
6. In the written statement filed by the petitioners/tenant, it was brought on record that had the respondent/landlord been in dire need of alternative accommodation, he would not have bought a house which were already occupied by a sitting tenant taking the risk of litigation and further delaying his shifting to the said house.
7. In the written statement, it was pointed out that the respondent/landlord was a big businessman and there were four houses already in his possession, details of which were given in the written statement, namely house nos. 109/222-A Jawahar Nagar, Kanpur, 109/220 Jawahar Nagar, Kanpur, 117/269 O Block, Geeta Nagar, Kanpur and Plot No. 76 in Dada Nagar Industrial area. Plot No. 76 was a commercial plot measuring over 2000 square yard of which half had been handed over by the landlord to his brother and house no. 109/222-A was owned by the mother of the respondent/landlord - Smt. Kunti Devi and was occupied by one of her sons Satish Shukla. House No. 109/220 Jawahar Nagar, Kanpur was being used for commercial purpose as also. Plot No. 76 Industrial area, Dada Nagar, Kanpur was being used for manufacture of hosiery business and if the respondent/landlord was in such dire need of accommodation instead of handing over half of the said plot no. 76 Dada Nagar, Kanpur to his brother, he could have set up his residence on Plot No. 76 industrial area, Dada Nagar, Kanpur.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant has also submitted that house no. 109/222 Nehru Nagar, Kanpur was also purchased by the landlord during the pendency of litigation through sale deed registered on 20.1.2014. The s
