Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Pramod Kumar Goyal – Appellant
Versus
Saroj Sharma – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ajit Kumar, J.
1. Heard Sri Nawal Kishore Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rishabh Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the landlord-respondent.
2. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India raises challenge to the order passed by the Prescribed Authority directing for release of the demised premises in favour of the landlord-respondent and also the order passed in appeal affirming the order passed by the said authority. Admittedly, release application has been filed to set up a plea for need of the son of the landlord-respondent which came to be contested basically on the point that there was no bona fide need so as to warrant release of the premises.
3. The Prescribed Authority has ordered for release of the demised premises and, therefore, the landlord-respondent challenged the judgment in appeal taking an additional ground that the release application itself was not maintainable as the mandatory requirement of 6 months' notice to maintain a release application as contemplated under Section 21(1)(a) was not fulfilled and, therefore, release application was hit by the first proviso to Section 21(1) of Act No.13 of 1972.
4. Here b
A tenant waives the right to contest the maintainability of a release application if objections are not raised timely, and the landlord's need for the property is determined to be bona fide.
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 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 : 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....
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 bona fide need of a landlord to evict tenants for an adult family member's independent business cannot be denied based solely on tenant longevity; evidence of genuine necessity must be considered....
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
