Back
ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA
Shiv Sewak Kashyap – Appellant
Versus
Veerendra Singh – Respondent
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 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
