IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. Munir, J.
Ashok Kumar Kesarwani – Petitioner
Versus
6th Additional District Judge Court No 5, Allahabad and others – Respondents
Matters Under Article 227 No. - 872 of 2019
Decided On : 01-04-2022
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Section 21(1) (a) – Tenant – Eviction - Property Dispute - Seeking Release of a Part of Residential Accommodation - Water Tax - House Tax - Application for release under Section 21(1)(a) of Act was made by, both sons of the late Manmohan Tandon, seeking release of a part of residential accommodation - Once a tenant has himself got a residential accommodation, or through any member of his family who has been normally residing with him or is wholly dependent on him, in a vacant state, no objection against release application under section 21(1)(a) of Act, 1972 shall be entertained from such tenant (Para 21).
Findings of the Court :
Tenant-petitioner has admitted fact that he has recently got constructed the house bearing Premises, and has, on that basis, opined that the tenant-petitioner has no right whatsoever to object to the release of the property in dispute - This line of reasoning is an alternate to that this Court has hitherto considered - It proceeds on the tenant- petitioner’s assertion that property in dispute is residential or that was the purpose for which it was let out - Even if this case of tenant-petitioner were to be accepted, Explanation (i) to Section 21(1) of Act would come into play and disable the tenant-petitioner from objecting to the application for release - The disability under the aforesaid provision would be attracted if tenant-petitioner or any member of his family has acquired another residential building in the same city, municipality etc
Result : Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. This petition is directed against an order of Mr. Ramesh Chandra, the 8th Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Allahabad passed in Rent Control Appeal No.10 of 2018, dismissing the said appeal and affirming the order of the Prescribed Authority/ Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.14, Allahabad, allowing the landlord's application for release under Section 21(1) (a) of The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972), for short “the Act” .
2. An application for release under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was made by Deepak Tandon and Shekhar Tandon, both sons of the late Manmohan Tandon, seeking release of a part of residential accommodation bearing premises No 18/15, Hastings Road, 1/5 Nyay Marg, Tandon Quarters, Allahabad (now Prayagraj), as detailed at the foot of the application. The aforesaid accommodation, that shall hereinafter be referred to as the property in dispute, is in the tenancy occupation of Ashok Kumar Kesarwani. Kesarwani is a tenant in the property in dispute at a monthly rent of Rs.520/-, besides water tax and house tax. The property in dispute was let out to Kesarwani's father, the late Kundan Lal Kesarwani for residential purposes. Kundan Lal Kesarwani lived in the property in dispute during his lifetime and left behind him Ashok Kumar Kesarwani, who is the opposite party to the application for release and the petitioner here, besides two other sons and daughters. The two other brothers of Ashok Kumar Kesarwani, who shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the tenant-petitioner', moved away from the property in dispute and settled elsewhere in Allahabad. The tenant-petitioner's sisters got married and have settled down in their matrimonial homes. The late Kundan Lal Kesarwani passed away some 20 years prior to institution of proceedings for release. The tenant-petitioner has inherited the tenancy and stays in the property in dispute along with his family. The tenant-petitioner manages a General Merchant and Grocers Shop located 25 metres away from the property in dispute. The tenant-petitioner's shop aforesaid is housed in the premises of one Smt. Chanda Rani Tandon, an aunt of the two landlords, Deepak Tandon and Shekhar Tandon. Pending proceedings before the Courts below, Shekhar Tandon has passed away and is represented on record before this Court by his two sons, Ayush Tandon and Utkarsh Tandon, besides his widow Smt. Archana Tandon. Deepak Tandon is arrayed as respondent no.3 to the petition. The heirs of Shekhar Tandon and Deepak Tandon shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the landlord-respondents' in case of a collective reference; in case of an individual reference, the landlord concerned shall be mentioned by name.
3. It is the landlord-respondents' further case that the tenant-petitioner has built a house of his own bearing Premises No. 62/30/6 B, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad and has moved to the aforesaid house of his after vacating the property in dispute. For all practical purposes, the tenant-petitioner has moved out of the property in dispute and holds it in namesake, as it carries meagre rent. The tenant-petitioner has placed his lock on the property in dispute in order to retain possession thereof. It was the case of Deepak Tandon and Shekhar Tandon that their mother is very old and stays with them at their residential premises located at 47/33, Lukarganj, Allahabad. The distance between the landlord-respondents' residence and that of their business premises is about 3 kilometers. Deepak Tandon owns a firm by the name of Shubham Fluent Controls and Dynamics, whereas Shekhar Tandon owns a business by the name of Tele Links. Both the businesses are housed in parts of premises owned by Smt. Chanda Rani Tandon, an aunt of Deepak Tandon and Shekhar Tandon.
4. The landlord-respondents are doing business in rented accommodation that is located at a distance of 100 metres for Deepak Tandon and 25 metres for Shekh
Point of Law : Once a tenant has himself got a residential accommodation, or through any member of his family who has been normally residing with him or is wholly dependent on him, in a vacant state,....
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 landlord's need for release should be judged disparately, and the tenant cannot question and compel a landlord to live in a particular manner. The landlord is the best judge of his residential re....
Point of Law - If the heirs and LRs of the landlord have a case of bona fide need as aforesaid, they would be free to pursue it by instituting appropriate proceedings before the Prescribed Authority ....
The landlord's bona fide need for premises cannot be questioned by the tenant regarding alternative accommodation; the landlord is the sole arbiter of his needs.
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 i....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.