Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ashutosh Srivastava, J.
Shiv Sewak Kashyap - Petitioner
Vs.
Veerendra Singh And Others - Respondent
Writ - A No. - 20193 of 2023
Decided On : 01-04-2024
Release Application - Landlord-Tenant Relationship - U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, Section 21(1)(a) - Summary: The court discussed the landlord-tenant relationship, the bona fide need of the landlord, comparative hardship, and the retrospective reading of the amendment in the release application. Key legal provisions such as Section 21(7) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 were interpreted and influenced the court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant in a shop, filed a writ petition assailing the judgment and order allowing the release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The release application was filed by the landlord claiming a bona fide need for the shop under the petitioner's tenancy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the landlord-tenant relationship existed, the amendment in the release application was read retrospectively, and the need of the premises under the tenancy was held to be bona fide. The court dismissed the writ petition and directed the petitioner to vacate the shop within 4 months.
Issues: The issues included the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship, retrospective reading of the amendment, and the bona fide need of the premises under the tenancy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the landlord-tenant relationship was established, the retrospective reading of the amendment was justified, and the need of the premises under the tenancy was found to be bona fide.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, directed the petitioner to vacate the shop within 4 months, and ordered the continued deposit of rent until the date of handing over possession.
JUDGMENT :
Ashutosh Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Sri Prakhar Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Shreya Gupta along with Sri Deepak Singh, learned counsels for the contesting plaintiff-respondents.
2. The writ petition at the instance of the tenant petitioner has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 18.10.2023 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 19, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Appeal No. 80 of 2022 (Virendra Singh (since deceased) & others vs. Shiv Sewak Kashyap) whereby and whereunder the Rent Appeal has been allowed and the judgment and order dated 01.07.2022 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Kanpur Nagar in Rent Case No. 02 of 2014 rejecting the release application under Section 21(1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 has been set aside and the release application has been allowed, the petitioner has been directed to handover the actual physical vacant possession of the shop in dispute to the respondent landlords. The respondent landlords in turn have been directed to compensate the petitioner with a sum equivalent to two years rent.
3. The admitted facts shorn of unnecessary details essential for deciding the controversy between the parties is that the petitioner is a tenant in a shop number 33-A situate on the ground floor of a building no. 33 Lakhanpur, Kanpur Nagar at monthly rent of Rs. 400/-. A release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed by one Virendra Singh the predecessor in interest of the respondent no. 1/1 to 1/3 herein setting up a bona fide need for the shop under the tenancy of the petitioner. In the release application, it was averred that the original landlord of the building no. 33C on the ground floor of which the shop under the tenancy of the petitioner is situate was Smt. Kamla Devi. On the death of Smt. Kamla Devi the building devolved upon her 3 sons (respondent Virendra and his two brothers). A mutual partition took place amongst the co-owners and the applicant Virendra Singh became the owner of the portion under which the shop under the tenancy fell. It was also averred in the release application that he has superannuated from the U.P. Power Corporation, Lucknow on 30.06.2013 and wants to set up his own business in the shop under the tenancy of the petitioner. It was also stated that the rent of the shop is Rs. 800 per month but the tenant has not paid rent since August 2013. In Para 9 of the release application, it was specifically stated that if the shop is released in his favour, the same would be utilized for carrying on business by self and would not be let out to any third party. It was further stated that the tenant petitioner is not carrying on business in the shop in question and infact is carrying on the business of his father in another shop.
4. The release application was opposed by the tenant petitioner primarily on the ground that on the own showing of the landlord respondent no. 1 the building no. 33C came to their share but the shop of the petitioner was 33A which came to the share of other co-owners and as such there existed no landlord-tenant relationship between him and the landlords. The tenant-petitioner filed the GST registration of the shop as also the electricity bills of the shop to demonstrate that the shop under his tenancy was numbered 33A.
5. During the pendency of the rent case before the Prescribed Authority the landlord Virendra Singh expired on 11.09.2018 and his heirs and legal representatives (respondent nos. 1/1 to 1/3 herein) were brought on record. Though the release application was amended but it was alleged by the tenant petitioner that no amendment regarding the need of the substituted heirs was done and consequently no need of the shop for the heirs was claimed. The respondent no. 1/1 however filed an affidavit before the Prescribed Authority clearly stating that the premises was required for starting a cosmetic business.
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.
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 bona fide need of a landlord for eviction under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Act is a factual determination that should not be interfered with by the courts, and tenants cannot dictate the m....
The court emphasized the importance of considering changed circumstances and the landlord's comparative hardship in determining the bona fide need for release applications.
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....
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....
Point of law : Since there is no bar under law upon the landlord in filing the release application, for which he is not even required to serve a notice under Section 21 of the Act of 1972 upon the te....
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
