Back
ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA
Gauri Shankar Prajapati – Appellant
Versus
Ravikul Bansal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ashutosh Srivastava, J.
1. All the above referred writ petitions involve identical questions of law and facts. The Writ Petition (A) No. 1597 of 2024 is being treated as the leading writ petition and the facts pertaining to the same is being considered for deciding the controversy involved.
2. Heard Shri Rishikesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the caveator/respondent.
3. The instant writ petition, at the instance of the tenant/petitioner, has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 6.1.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Banda in Rent Control Appeal No. 8 of 2022 as also the judgment and order dated 24.5.2022 passed by the learned Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Banda in Rent Case No. 5 of 2018 (Ravi Kul Bansal v. Gauri Shankar Prajapati).
4. By the judgment and order dated 24.5.2022, the learned Prescribed Authority allowed the release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. By the judgment and order dated 6.1.2024, the Appellate Authority has dismissed the Rent Appeal and upheld the judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority dated 24.5.2022.
5. The
The court established that a landlord's bona fide need for premises must be genuine, and the existence of alternate accommodations must be evaluated in context.
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.
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 landlord is the best judge of his requirement and the tenant cannot dictate the landlord as to how and in what manner he should live. The availability of other vacant shops, as pleaded by the ten....
The court established that a landlord's bona fide need for their property does not require absolute necessity, and long-term tenancy does not preclude eviction if the landlord's need is genuine.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the bonafide need of the landlord and the comparative hardship of the landlord and tenant in deciding a release application ....
The landlord's need for release should be judged disparately, and the tenant cannot question and compel a landlord to live in a particular manner. The landlord is the best judge of his residential re....
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
