Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. Munir, J.
Mohd. Ishaq – Petitioner
Versus
A.D.J./Special Judge S.C./S.T.Act Jhansi And Another – Respondents
WRIT - A No. - 59655 of 2011
Decided On : 12-04-2023
Release Application - Bona Fide Need - U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, Section 21(1)(a) - 21(1)(b) - 22 - 18(2) of the Rules - The court allowed the landlord's appeal, granting the application for release and ordering the tenant's eviction.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord sought release of a shop from the tenant under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, claiming bona fide need for residence and business. The tenant denied the landlord's need and argued that the release application was barred by Rule 18(2) of the Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the release application was not barred by Rule 18(2) and that the circumstances had changed since the rejection of the earlier release application, justifying the landlord's renewed application. The court found in favor of the landlord's bona fide need for business but not for residential purposes.
Issues: The issues included the maintainability of the release application, the landlord's bona fide need, and comparative hardship.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the release application was not barred by Rule 18(2) and that the landlord's circumstances had changed, justifying the renewed application. The court also held that the tenant's failure to search for alternative accommodation and the long occupation on a low rent favored the landlord's comparative hardship.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and allowed the landlord's appeal, granting the application for release and ordering the tenant's eviction.
JUDGMENT :
1. This is a tenant's writ petition arising out of a judgment and order passed by Mr. Vigyanram Mishra, the then Additional District Judge/ Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jhansi in Rent Control Appeal No.6 of 2009, allowing the appeal, setting aside the judgment and order dated 07.05.2009 made by the Prescribed Authority and granting the landlord's application for release under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972.
2. An application for release was made on behalf of Kailash Babu Agrawal seeking release of Shop No.13, situate at Mohalla Nanjhai Bazar, Jhansi against the tenant, Mohd. Ishaq on the ground of his bona fide need. The application was made under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (for short, 'the Act') with a case that Shop No.13, Nanjhai Bazar, Jhansi (for short, 'the demised shop') was purchased by Kailash Babu Agrawal (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlord') on 11.01.1993 for the purpose of his own need. It is the landlord's case that he neither has a house to live or a shop to carry on business of his own. The demised shop, that is in the tenancy occupation of Mohd. Ishaq (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenant') is bona fide required by the landlord for the purpose of his residence as well as setting up his shop to earn his livelihood. Once the demised shop became available to the landlord, he would get it redone according to his requirement, where on the ground floor, he would carry on a shop for earning his livelihood, and, on the first floor, set up his living quarters. For the time being, the landlord lives in House No.207, Daru Bhaundela, Jhansi, which is a small house. It has 5-6 rooms, whereas the landlord's family has 20 members. The landlord has in his possession a room of 10x10 feet, wherein he lives with his wife, a daughter 14 years old and a son aged 10 years, all with much difficulty.
3. The landlord's mother is sharp tempered and on account of shortage of space, there are frequent quarrels between his wife and mother. Then there is the landlord's brother, Ramesh Chandra, whose sons have grown up and the elder son has got married in the year 2000. The landlord's mother is under the influence of his elder brother and insisting that the landlord may move away to another house. He has no shop of his own to earn his livelihood. For sometime past, he would work at Ramesh Chandra's shop. Ramesh Chandra has now asked him not to sit on his shop, rendering the landlord jobless. The relationship between the two brothers has become embittered on this account. The demised shop is dimensioned 12x60 feet, which is sufficient space for residential purpose. The tenant fabricates steel almirahs at home and utilizes the demised shop for the purpose of selling them. He is retaining possession of the demised shop in order to extort premium from the landlord to vacate.
4. Pending the proceeding for release, through an amendment application, an amendment was sought to the effect that the landlord's children have grown up. His daughter is reading in B.Com. whereas his elder son reads in Intermediate College. Both the children need a separate room for their studies, a fact that has accentuated the landlord's bona fide need for the demised shop. It is on these grounds that release of the demised shop was prayed.
5. The tenant, Mohd. Ishaq put in a written statement denying the landlord's case generally. It was averred that the release application has been made without basis in order to trouble the tenant on incorrect facts and to exert unlawful pressure upon him. It is the tenant's case that ever since the landlord had purchased the demised shop, he has been litigating with the tenant. It is pleaded that P.A. Case No. 26 of 1993 was instituted on 11.03.1993 on false premises under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act with a case that the demised shop was in a dilapidated condition, which was required by the landlord after reconstruction.
6. The said application was dismissed by the Prescribed Authority vide judgmen
The court emphasized the importance of considering changed circumstances and the landlord's comparative hardship in determining the bona fide need for release applications.
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 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....
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.
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
