Kalyan Singh vs Anuj Bhushan Mittal - 2021 Supreme(All) 1738

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(All) 1738

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SIDDHARTH, J.
Kalyan Singh - Appellant
Versus
Anuj Bhushan Mittal And Others - Respondents
Writ A No.10482 of 2021
Decided on : 05-10-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Agnivesh, Jadu Nandan Yadav
For the Respondent: Raj Kumar Kesari

Headnote:(A) U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 - Section 21(1)(a) - Rent control - Landlord's genuine and bonafide need established for shop vacated for son's independent business, despite tenant's long-standing tenancy and livelihood dependency. Courts affirmed landlord’s choice of accommodation and comparative hardship favorably. (Paras 3-12)

(B) Landlord's discretion to select accommodations for business needs must be respected by courts, concurrent findings should not be interfered unless perverse. (Para 11)

Facts of the case:
The landlord filed for the shop's release for his son’s business, claiming no alternative accommodation was available; tenant asserted longstanding tenancy and proposed alternatives, challenging the bona fides of the landlord's claims.

Findings of Court:
The authorities upheld the landlord's claim as bonafide, dismissing tenant's counterarguments as unsubstantiated and not reflecting genuine hardship.

Issues: Whether the landlord's need supersedes the tenant's long-term occupation and what constitutes bonafide need.

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the discretionary authority of the landlord over the property, reinforcing that tenant's arguments did not outweigh the landlord’s established claims of need and hardship.

Result: Petition dismissed; tenant granted one-year grace period to vacate.

Table of Content
1. genuine need of the landlord for business. (Para 3 , 4)
2. court confirms authority's findings on need. (Para 5 , 7 , 8)
3. landlord's discretion in property use upheld. (Para 6 , 11)
4. tenant argues hardship vs landlord's need. (Para 9 , 10)
5. petition dismissed with conditions for tenant. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)

JUDGMENT :

Siddharth, J.

1. Heard Shri Agnivesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Raj Kumar Kesari, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of the judgement and order dated 22.2.2021 passed by District Judge, Hapur in Rent Control Appeal no. 04 of 2019 and order dated 14.8.2019 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (S.D.), Ist, Hapur in P.A. Case No. 6 of 2017(Anuj Bhushan Vs. Kalyan Singh).

3. The landlord /respondent filed an application under section 21(1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 before the Prescribed Authority praying for release of shop no. W-28/510 (1) Gandhi Ganj, Hapur for the need of his son Nitesh Mittal for doing business of Graphics. The landlord is doing business of Graphics in southern portion of the shop in dispute and wants the shop in dispute to be vacated for independent business of his son. He has got a firm registered as “Nitesh Enterprises” registered in different departments for the business of his son in June 2016. There is no other accommodation available to him for the business of his son, who is not getting married because of lack of independent business. The tenant is running a shop of tailor in the name of “Asha Tailor”. The needs of the landlord is genuine and bonafide. Tenant does not need the shop in dispute. Hence his release application may be allowed.

4. The tenant/ respondent filed his written statement stating that he is tenant of the shop in dispute since the year 1983 and it is the only source of livelihood of the tenant and his family. Earlier shop was let out @ Rs.250/-per month but now its rent is Rs.1500/-per month. It is in his knowledge that landlord respondent alongwith disputed shop has two more shops, stairs and two rooms above them. One big godown and residential accommodation behind the same. The landlord has got room vacated from the tenant for business but this fact has been concealed in the release application. He is doing business with his son and has got the firm registered in the name of his son only to show his bonafide need, when there is no such firm in existence. The tenant/petitioner has four sons and two of themare working in his tailoring shop and they and their families are dependent on the shop in dispute.The tenant-petitioner got his written statement amended and pleaded that after filing his evidence he has come to know that in building of the disputed shop, there is one shop facing south vacant, which is owned by the landlord. The son of the landlord can easily do his business in the aforesaid shop. In case the aforesaid vacant shop is not suitable for the business of the landlord then tenant petitioner is willing to vacate the present shop and shift into the other vacant shop as per Rule 16(2) (c) of U.P. Urban Building(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules,1972. He prayed that release application may be dismissed since there is no bonafide need of the landlord regarding shop in dispute.

5. The Prescribed authority by the impugned order dated 14.8.2019 allowed the release application of the landlord/respondent No.1 holding that since the need of the educated unemployed son of the landlord has been set up in the release application, the release application deserves to be allowed.

6. The prescribed authority found that the son of the landlord cannot be compelled to do business jointly with his father. It further found that landlord is free to use his property as he likes, tenant can not dictate him in this regard. The prescribed authority, therefore, recorded the finding that the need of the landlord is bonafide and genuine.

7. The prescribed authority

Click Here to Read the rest of this document