Back
SANGEETA CHANDRA
Geeta Shukla – Appellant
Versus
District Judge Unnao – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioners have prayed for setting aside of order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 30.10.2021 and also the order passed by the District Judge, Unnao in Rent Appeal No.34 of 2001 dated 20 December 2021. It is the case of the petitioners that their predecessor in interest i e the husband of the Petitioner No.1 and father of Petitioner No.2 Late Surya Narayana Shukla was the tenant of two shops in Bajpai Building Part-B, Rajdhani Marg Shukla Ganj, Unnao, on rent at the rate of Rs.300 and Rs.400 respectively, a total of Rs.700/- per month. A release application was filed by Dr. Deshbandhu Bajpai, the Respondent No.3 regarding the two shops under Section 21(1) a of U.P. Act No.XIII of 1972. In the said release application the Respondent-Landlord stated that he was running a homeopathic clinic in his ancestral house at Kanpur Nagar but with the passage of time his children had grown and his son and also his daughter had completed their degree course in homoeopathic medicine. He wished to establish an independent clinic in the said shops as his house at Bhusatola Kanpur Nagar, being ancestral, was partitioned amongst three brothers and his present clinic was very
The landlord's need for release of premises cannot be dictated by the tenant, and the landlord is the best judge of his need. The court cannot advise the landlord on how to carry out his business or ....
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 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....
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....
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: landlord has got every right to expand his business and in case he requires additional space for it, the need cannot be said to be mala fide. In the present case, there are four doctors....
The court emphasized the importance of considering changed circumstances and the landlord's comparative hardship in determining the bona fide need for release applications.
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
