Awadesh Kumar vs Rameshawar Dayal (since deceased)

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(All) 1267

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Awadesh Kumar and Others - Petitioners
Versus
Rameshawar Dayal (since deceased) and Others - Respondents
Writ - A No. 11644 of 2018
Decided On : 17-11-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. B.N. Agarwal.
For the Respondent:Mr. Atul Dayal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ayush Khanna.

Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – Section 21(1)(a) – Order of release – Tenants' writ petition assailing an order of release under Section 21(1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 passed concurrently by two Authorities below – Held, Finding of two Authorities below is based on a reasonable and plausible view of matter, which does not call for interference – So far as the issue of comparative hardship is concerned, two Authorities below have taken note of fact that tenants have not made efforts to find alternative accommodation during all this period of time, which tilts balance of comparative hardship against them – Appellate Authority has taken particular note of fact that tenant in his cross-examination has said that even if landlord were to offer him another shop, he would not vacate demised shop – Stand of tenants, Appellate Authority has regarded as malicious – Court is of opinion that issue of comparative hardship has been rightly answered against the tenants by Authorities below. Quite apart, Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution generally ought not to interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by Authorities below, unless shown to be perverse or manifestly illegal – Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

This is a tenants' writ petition assailing an order of 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') passed concurrently by the two Authorities below.

2. An application for the release of a shop, situate in Mohalla Lajpat Nagar, Bazar Manik Chowk, Konch, District Jalaun, was moved by Rameshwar Dayal son of Sri Munga Lal before the Prescribed Authority/ Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Konch, District Jalaun against the three tenant-petitioners, Awadesh Kumar, Jitendra Kumar and Mukesh Kumar, all sons of the late Balram Soni. The boundaries of the shop aforesaid are detailed at the foot of the release application, instituted before the Prescribed Authority. This shop shall hereinafter be referred to as ''the demised shop'.

3. The application for release under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was moved by Rameshwar Dayal against the three tenant-petitioners on the ground of his bona fide need, which shall hereinafter be detailed.

4. Pending proceedings before the Appellate Authority, Rameshwar Dayal died and was substituted by his heirs and LRs, who are landlord-respondents nos. 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 and 1/5 to this petition. Rameshwar Dayal (since deceased) and represented by his heirs and LRs on record, shall hereinafter be referred to as ''the landlord', unless the context requires individual reference, in which case the landlord concerned will be referred to by his name. The application for release instituted by the landlord before the Prescribed Authority, Jalaun at Orai was registered as P.A. Case No. 4 of 2012. The case of the landlord was that the demised shop, the boundaries whereof are detailed in Paragraph No. 1 of the application (also at the foot thereof) was in the tenancy occupation of the tenant-petitioners' father, Balram son of Hariram Soni.

5. The landlord asserted that the tenant-petitioners' father held the demised shop as his tenant. The three tenant-petitioners, Awadesh Kumar, Jitendra Kumar and Mukesh Kumar, who shall hereinafter be referred to as ''the tenants' (unless the context requires individual reference, in which case the tenant-petitioner(s) concerned shall be mentioned by name) succeeded to the tenancy occupation of the demised shop upon their father's death on 16.04.2006. The tenants are in arrears of rent, which is payable at the rate of Rs.225/- per month, amounting to Rs.2700/-, due since before 01.04.2006. The tenants are defaulters.

6. According to the landlord, amongst the tenants, Awadesh Kumar was managing a tea shop in partnership with one Gopi Chand Saxena at Mohalla Naya Gandhi Nagar, Konch. Likewise, the other tenant, Jitendra Kumar has established his business under the name and style of Balaji Jewellers in a shop situate at Town Ait. The third tenant, Mukesh Kumar had migrated to Pune, Maharashtra, where he was employed as a worker in a factory and permanently domiciled there. The demised shop is lying locked. The tenants, therefore, have no use for the demised shop at all, which has lost all purpose and utility for them. The landlord requires the demised shop for his younger son, Mukesh Kumar, who is aged about 30 years, educated and unemployed still. Mukesh Kumar has married 8 years ago and is living separately. The landlord desires to settle his son aforesaid in the jewellers' business, utilizing the demised shop, which is suitable for the purpose.

7. The need of the landlord compared to the tenants is weightier. The tenants would not face any hardship in vacating the demised shop, because they do not need it, whereas the landlord would face extreme hardship in case release were refused. This is so as the landlord does not have any alternative shop for the purpose of establishing his son, Mukesh Kumar in business.

8. It was also averred in the application for release that on 20.09.2012, the landlord caused a notice to quit to be served upon the tenants, asking them to