Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
J.J. Munir, J.
Satya Narayan And Others - Petitioner
Vs.
Rayeesh And Others – Respondent
WRIT - A No. - 15 of 2009
Decided On : 04-02-2022
Article 227 - Release of Shop - U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, Section 21(1)(a) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the landlord's application for release of a shop under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The court analyzed the landlord's bona fide need for the shop to settle his sons and grandsons in business, the comparative hardship between the landlord and the tenant, and the lack of efforts by the tenant to search for alternative accommodation. The court found the landlord's need to be bona fide and the hardship greater for the landlord, leading to the decision to allow the release application.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, seeking to release a shop for the bona fide need of settling his sons and grandsons in business. The tenant had not paid rent and the landlord's family members were unemployed and in need of occupation. Both the landlord and tenant had passed away during the proceedings, and the litigation had passed on to the next generation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the landlord's need to be bona fide and the hardship greater for the landlord, as the tenant had not made efforts to search for alternative accommodation. The court held that the judgments of the lower authorities were beset by perversity and ordered the release of the shop, allowing the eviction of the tenant.
Issues: The main issues were the landlord's bona fide need for the shop, the comparative hardship between the landlord and the tenant, and the lack of efforts by the tenant to search for alternative accommodation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the landlord's need was bona fide, the hardship greater for the landlord, and the tenant had not made efforts to search for alternative accommodation, leading to the decision to allow the release application and order the eviction of the tenant.
Final Decision: The court allowed the release application, ordered the eviction of the tenant, and directed the tenant to vacate the premises within two months, with compensation equivalent to two years' rent to be paid by the landlords.
JUDGMENT :
J.J. Munir, J.
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against a concurrent refusal by the two Authorities below to release a shop in the tenancy occupation of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3, in proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (for short, ' the Act').
2. The petitioners are the owners and landlords of a shop located at Mohalla Ajay Pal, Pargana and District Kannauj (for short 'the demised shop') the details whereof are set out at the foot of the release application dated 17.08.1985, moved before the Prescribed Authority. The release application was moved by the landlord, Bhikhari Lal against the tenant, Abdul Majid. The landlord and the tenant have both passed away pending proceedings before the Authorities below and this Court. It is the heirs and LRs of the landlord and the tenant who are litigating.
3. From the record of proceedings, it must be noted that learned counsel for the respondents has made a statement on 04.04.2009 that they do not wish to file a counter affidavit. Thereafter, they have indeed not filed a counter affidavit or sought leave to file one. The petition was formally admitted to hearing on 18.09.2021 and heard forthwith. On the said date also, learned counsel appearing for the respondents stood by the waiver of their right to file a return. Thus, this petition was heard on the basis of material placed on record, annexed to the petition and judgment was reserved.
4. These proceedings commenced with the presentation of an application to the Prescribed Authority on 17.08.1985 by Bhikhari Lal, the landlord of the demised shop against his tenant, Abdul Majid under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, praying that it may be released in his favour on the ground of bona fide need. Abdul Majid, the tenant, was in occupation of the demised shop at a monthly rent of Rs. 20/-. The application for release was registered on the file of the Prescribed Authority as Case No. 5 of 1985. It was said in the application that Bhikhari Lal is the owner of the demised shop, which was a part of his house where he lived. The shop was located on the ground floor of the house. Bhikhari Lal was a professional maker of sweetmeats (Halvai). He had a number of sons and grandsons, who, after education, were unemployed. Three of Bhikhari Lal's sons, to wit, Ram Autar, Ram Adhar and Ram Kumar were litigating over one shop in order to establish their exclusive right. It was pleaded that Bhikhari Lal needed the demised shop bona fide to settle his sons and grandsons in business. It was pleaded that in order to find his sons and grandsons' an occupation, he wanted to utilize the demised shop. He wanted them to establish a soda water shop. He had also purchased a soda water machine, which was lying idle for want of space.
5. It was the further case of Bhikhari Lal that he had asked the tenant, Abdul Majid to vacate but to no avail. The tenant had also not paid rent since the month of October of the year preceding the presentation of the application. It is also said by the landlord that the tenant does not do any particular business in the demised shop. The tenant had other occupations to earn his livelihood. He did not at all need the shop. It was the landlord's case that the tenant had taken the demised shop on rent to establish a tailor’ shop. However, he does some kind of a trade in potatoes. His tailoring business is not a going one and he does trade in potatoes and other vegetables. The tenant has a handsome income from his trade. The tenant utilizes the demised shop for the purpose of his residence, besides storing wares like toys and confectionery for children in scanty quantities. For most part of the time, it is the tenant's son who sits in the shop, which does not yield much income. The tenant's livelihood is not dependant on the shop. The landlord, Bhikhari Lal, has greater need fo
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the landlord's bona fide need for the shop, the comparative hardship between the landlord and the tenant, and the lack of efforts by the tenan....
Subsequent events can be taken note of. The High Court, even though referred to the relevance of the subsequent events erroneously came to the conclusion that even if the judgment and order passed by....
Point of Law : It is required on the part of petitioner to search accommodation after filing the release application and in the present case there is no dispute that the petitioner had never made any....
The court emphasized the importance of considering changed circumstances and the landlord's comparative hardship in determining the bona fide need for release applications.
A landlord's bona fide need for premises does not require proof of dire necessity, and tenants must demonstrate efforts to find alternative accommodation to establish greater hardship.
The legal representatives of a deceased landlord can pursue eviction applications based on their own needs under Section 21(7) of the Act, even if the original need was personal.
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
