2021 Supreme(All) 161

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Vivek Kumar Birla, J.
Om Prakash - Petitioner
Versus
Prayagwati Devi Agrawal And 4 Others - Respondent
WRIT - A No. - 9686 of 2020
Decided On : 5.2.2021

Point of law: perusal of the provision, quoted above, shows that the following categories of persons fall within the meaning of landlord : (1) any person for the time being entitled to receive rent in respect of any building or rented land; (2) a trustee, guardian, receiver, executor or administrator for any other person; (3) a tenant who sub-lets any building or rented land in the manner authorised under the Act; and (4) every person from time to time deriving title under a landlord. Among these four categories of persons, brought within the meaning of "landlord", Mr. Sharma sought to derive support from the last category. Even so, that category refers to a person who derives his title under a landlord and not under an owner of a premises. For purposes of the said category the transferor of the title referred to therein must fall under any of the categories (1) to (3). To be a landlord within the meaning of clause (c) of Section 2 a person need not necessarily be the owner; in a vast majority of cases an owner will be a landlord but in many cases a person other than an owner may as well be a landlord. It may be that in a given case the landlord is also an owner but a landlord under the Act need not be the owner. It may be noted that for purposes of the act the legislature has made a distinction between an owner of a premises and a landlord. The Act deals with the rights and obligations of a landlord only as defined therein. Ownership of a premises is immaterial for purposes of the Act.

Headnote:

U.P. Act 13 of 1972 – Sections 21, 22 – Release Application – Quashing of the order – Present petition has been filed for quashing the order passed by the District Judge, Hathras in UPUB Appeal – Further prayer has been made seeking quashing of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority / Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hathras in P.A. Case – Landlord filed release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 against the petitioner-tenant herein seeking release of the shop in favour of the landlord on the ground of bona fide requirement of the shop no. 1 at Bengali Mandir Ramleela Chauk Veniganj, Hathras for the purpose of business of her younger son – It was asserted that the tenant is not carrying on any business in the shop in dispute and the same is lying vacant. – The petitioner-tenant contested the matter on the ground that no default has been committed in payment of rent; the plaintiff-respondent is not the owner of the shop in question; the shop in question is owned by Swami Thakur Bihari Ji Maharaj Virajman Bangali Mandir, Ramleela Maidan, Hathras and the only role of the plaintiff no. 1 was to collect the rent on behalf of the Trust, therefore, the release application itself was not maintainable at the instance of the plaintiff-landlord-respondent; the respondents are merely Managers of the Trust property which includes the shop in question; Pankaj Agarwal for whose alleged need release is being claimed is gainfully employed in a private job; business is being carried on in the shop and is not lying vacant.

Finding of the court: It is admitted that he is in some private job in a shop, therefore, he is not having any independent business of his own and therefore, need to settle him in a business on a shop in dispute is genuine and bonafide. Insofar as comparative hardship is concerned, bare perusal of electricity bill annexed with the present petition clearly indicates that in every bill huge arrears of electricity towards minimum charges have been indicated, which clearly indicates that the shop in question was not in use and there was no material consumption of electricity units, which may indicate that shop is in use for business purposes. – The appellate authority has also noticed the fact that no document whatsoever towards payment of tax, income tax, bills of purchase, sales bill and registration of shop have been placed on record to indicate that infact, any business is being carried on. – That apart, it is also not in dispute that no effort was made by the tenant to search any other alternative accommodation during pendency of the litigation. – Therefore, in view of the settled law on this issue it cannot be said that the tenant has any comparative hardship. – It is held that this issue has been correctly decided by the courts below. – Court have gone through the rulings relied on by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. – Court do not find that the rulings relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner are of any help to him. – Court do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity in the findings recorded and the conclusion drawn by the courts below.

Result: – Petition Dismissed.