Back
ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA
Radha Kishan Golani – Appellant
Versus
Savitri Devi – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Ashutosh Srivastava, J.
Heard Shri. Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri. Ashutosh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The instant writ petition, at the instance of the tenant, has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated 8.2.2023 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Appeal No. 66 of 2018 (Radha Kishan Golani v. Smt. Savitri Devi through her Lrs) whereby the appeal has been rejected as also the judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority/Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Court No. 2, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Case No. 2 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 has been allowed.
3. The lis between the parties is with regard to a shop forming part of premises No. 111A/399, Ashok Nagar, Kanpur Nagar under the tenancy of the petitioner with monthly rent of Rs. 750/- per month. A release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed by the respondent/landlady Smt. Savirtri Devi setting up a need of the shop under the tenancy of the petitioner for her son Dinesh Kumar and his two adult sons Amit Kumar and Su
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 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 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.
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....
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.
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....
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....
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
