IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. Munir, J.
Aligarh Sarrafa Committee Sarrafa Bazar and Another – Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Prabha Rani and Ors. – Respondents
WRIT -A No. -10347 of 2018
Decided On : 04-11-2022
Constitution of India, 1949 – Article 226 – Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – Section 21 – Power of High Court to issue certain writs – Tenancy Occupation – Petition against an order of release passed concurrently by two Authorities two petitioners who are effectively one are tenants admeasuring meters of which respondent landlady shop aforesaid is held by petitioners at a monthly shop shall hereinafter be called demised shop – Held, Court must remark that though rent agreement that has been brought on record through counter affidavit is not part of record before Authorities below and generally may not be looked into indeed a supervening event of much consequence rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of tenant in Paragraph there is a bald denial of fact that land lads son has established his clinic at Aligarh pending this petition in a rented premises – Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings of two Courts of fact below additionally noticed leave no manner of doubt in this Court's mind that tenant is not entitled to relief in exercise of our equitable jurisdiction – Petition fails and is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. This is a tenants’ petition against an order of release passed 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’) passed concurrently by the two Authorities below.
2. The two petitioners, who are effectively one, are tenants in a shop, situate at Sarrafa Bazar, Aligarh, admeasuring 15 square meters, of which Smt. Prabha Rani, respondent no.1 to this petition, is the landlady. The shop aforesaid is held by the petitioners at a monthly rent of Rs.50/-. The said shop shall hereinafter be called ‘the demised shop’.
3. The facts giving rise to this petition are that Smt. Pratibha Rani, respondent no.1, who shall hereinafter be referred to as the landlady, instituted the present proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act with the case that she purchased two shops, admeasuring 15 square meters, situate at Sarrafa Bazar, Aligarh, through a registered sale deed dated 31.10.1995. Out of the two shops, the smaller one, which has a door of one meter, is in the occupation of the landlady's husband, Manohar Lal Gupta, who carries on the business of a jeweller therein. The other shop, that has a door of two meters wide, is in the tenancy occupation of the Aligarh Sarrafa Committee since the time of the previous owner and landlord, at the monthly rent, already mentioned hereinabove. It is the said shop, that has already been introduced hereinbefore as the demised shop. The Aligarh Sarrafa Committee, Sarrafa Bazar, Aligarh is a registered body, which has a triennial election and is represented by its Secretary. The Secretary of the aforesaid Sarrafa Committee is responsible for all actions of the Body and is competent to prosecute and defend legal proceedings on its behalf. The Aligarh Sarrafa Committee shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the tenant'. It is the landlady's case that the tenant has a weighbridge (dharamkanta) installed in the demised shop. For the present, the weighbridge is not in use. Every shop in the Sarrafa Bazar is now equipped with electronic weighing machines.
4. The tenant, apart from the demised shop, has another at Rafatganj, located at a short distance from the former. The tenant is the owner of the latter shop, where also a weighbridge is installed. The shop at Rafatganj also by and large remains closed. In addition, the tenant has still another shop, located at a distance of about 20 yards in the Surajbhan Market, Purani Kotwali, Aligarh, where too a weighbridge is installed. Whatever use the tenant has for a weighbridge is sufficiently met by the one that is housed in the shop that the tenant has at the Surajbhan Market. The Surajbhan Market is also part of the Sarrafa Bazar and, therefore, good for the requirements of the tenant. The tenant has one more shop, located near the Pyaun, that is situate opposite Kunji Lal's shop. The said shop is vacant and lying locked. The tenant is the owner of the said shop. Apart from all these three shops, barely 50 yards away from the demised shop, the tenant has a property known as 'Atithi Grih', situate at Purani Kotwali, Sarrafa Bazar. The said property is a mere 50 yards away from the demised shop. This property is a four storeyed building and apart from the occupancy on the ground floor, all floors of the building are lying vacant. The tenant can easily establish its weighbridge in any of these properties. It must be remarked here that the way the landlady has received assistance in the drafting of her application, it appears to be the result of inexperience or poor forensic talent. This Court says so because the first part of the application, in a case under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, ought to carry pleadings about the landlord/landlady's bona fide need. The pleadings, that have just now been mentioned, seem to refer to the facts that are relevant about the issue of comparative hardship, which should come next after the pleadings related to the bo
Bhagwat Prasad Agrawal v. Radha Raman Agrawal
Smt. Kanta and others v. Additional District Judge, Lucknow and others
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....
The court emphasized the importance of considering changed circumstances and the landlord's comparative hardship in determining the bona fide need for release applications.
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 concept of bona fide need requires a genuine desire for premises, and the landlord's choice of accommodation should be respected by the court.
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.