Back
2011 Supreme(UK) 315
2011 (2) UAD 672
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
B.S. Verma
Writ PetitionNo. 154 (M/S) of 2006
SRI BASANT KUMAR NAUDIYAL (DECEASED) BY L.R. & ORS. – Petitioners
Versus
DISTRICT JUDGE, PAURI GARHWAL & TWO ORS. – Respondents
Decided on : 27.05.2011
For the Petitioners:Mr. S.K. Posti, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 1 & 2: Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Brief Holder
For the Respondent No. 3:Mr. S.K. Jain, Advocate
Headnote:U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, Sec. 21(1)(a) — Bonafide need — Subsequent events — Comparative hardship — In the instant case at the time of filing the release application, landlord had specifically mentioned therein that his two sons were unemployed — During the pendency of writ petition his one son joined government job — But another son was still unemployed — With assertion made by filing rejoinder affidavit that he wanted to start his business on the premises in suit — Mere getting job by one son, bonafide need of the premises does not come to an end as another son of landlord was still unemployed and he had bonafide need of the premises — Comparative harship in favour of landlord — As the tenant was insufficient to overshadow his landlord's bonafide need — Petition, allowed and the learned Prescirbed Authority's order, upheld. (Paras 24 to 28)
mÙkj izns'k uxjh Hkou ¼fdjk;s ij nsus] fdjk;k vkSj [kkyh djkus dk fu;a=.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1972] /kkjk 21(1)(a) & okLrfod vko';drk & dkykUrj dh ?kVuk,a & rqyukRed ijs'kkuh & izLrqr dsl esa mUekspu izkFkZuk i= nk;j djus ds le;] Hkou Lokeh }kjk ml esa [kkl rkSj ls ;g n'kkZ;k x;k Fkk fd mlds nks yM+ds csjkstxkj Fks & fjV ;kfpdk] ds yafcr jgrs gq, mlds ,d yM+ds ds }kjk ljdkjh ukSdjh Tokbu dj yh xbZ Fkh ijUrq nwljk yM+dk vHkh Hkh csjkstxkj Fkk & fjTokbUMj 'kiFk i= }kjk ;g tksj nsdj dgk x;k fd fookfnr edku esa og viuk O;olk; izkjaHk djuk pkgrk Fkk & ,d yM+ds ds }kjk dsoy ukSdjh ik ysus ls Hkou dh okLrfod vko';drk lekIr ugha gks tkrh pw¡fd Hkou Lokeh dk nwljk yM+dk vHkh Hkh csjkstxkj Fkk vkSj mls Hkou dh okLrfod vko';drk Fkh & rqyukRed ijs'kkuh Hkou Lokeh ds i{k esa Fkh & pw¡fd fdjk;snkj vius Hkou Lokeh dh okLrfod vko';drk dks de fl) djus esa l{ke ugha Fkk vr% ;kfpdk Lohdkj dh xbZ vkSj ekU; fu/kkZfjr vf/kdkjh ds vkns'k dks fujLr fd;k x;kA ¼izLrj 24 ls 28½
By means of this petition the petitioners have sought the following relief –
(A) To issue an order or direction to summon the record of case and set aside the order of 1st Appellate Court dated 23.12.2005 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition).
(B) To issue an order or direction, directing the respondents to vacate the disputed accommodation in favour of landlord.
(C) To issue an order or direction to the respondents to allow the application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 of the landlord.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to the instant writ petition, according to the petitioner, are that petitioner is land-lord of House No. 94 situated at Patel Marg, Kotdwar, within the Municipal Limit Kotdwar. The respondent No. 3 was tenant of shop situated in the ground floor of the above house at a monthly rent of Rs. 250/-, which was let out to him in the year 1975 and the respondent No. 3 was running a shop in the disputed accommodation. The tenant has closed his shop in the disputed accommodation and shifted his business at Nazibabad Road, Kotdwar before 10 years and disputed accommodation is in locked position in the possession of tenant. The landlord moved an application U/S 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, in the Court of Prescribed Authority, Kotdwar, for the eviction of the tenant from the said accommodation. The landlord in the application has stated that he has four sons and two sons Harsh Vardhan and Vijay Kumar are in the Government Service and living separately with their family at the places of their employment. The other two sons of landlord, Ajay Kumar and Sailendra Naudiyal, are unemployed and Ajay Kumar is a Junior Advocate. He is married, having two children also. He wants to start his legal practice at Kotdwar and for that purpose he requires disputed accommodation for chamber purposes. It is furtther alleged that at present Ajay Kumar is practicing at Pauri and his village is at a distance of 15 kilometers from Pauri Town and is further 1½ Kms. Away from the motor head, therefore, it is very difficult to do legal practice at Pauri because there is no accommodation available with him at Pauri Town. The landlord further alleged that the tenant has already shifted from the disputed accommodation to Najibabad road Kotdwar and the tenant is also having in his possession other accommodation in Ward No. 22 House No. 68, Patel Marg at the house of Ramesh Chand Bhardwaj. The tenant has also second accommodation House No. 25, in his possession at Ward No. 23, at Najibabad road. A shop is in possession of tenant is at the house of Maszid Committee. The petitioner further stated that the tenant has his house at Ward No. 19. The tenant is also having his go down on the ground floor of House No. 1, situated at Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Road. In this way the contention of petitioner is that the tenant is having three more accommodations apart from the disputed one for his business purposes, which are situated within the Municipal limit, Kotdwar, while on the other hand landlord is not having any accommodation available to him to establish his son Ajay Kumar Naudiyal, except the disputed premises. The petitioner’s allegation further is that the tenant was in the arrears of rent from 2001 to 2003.
3. The tenant/respondent No. 3, filed objection to the application filed U/S 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. He has accepted that he had another tenanted accommodation for go-down at the house of Ramesh Chandra Bhardwaj. In para-4 of the W.S. the tenant has denied this fact that Ajay Kumar and Sailendra Kumar are unemployed and Ajay Kumar wants to do legal practice at Kotdwar. In para-11 of the W.S. it is alleged that the application filed by the landlord is against the law and facts and there is no need of disputed shop to the landlord for running the legal profession of his son. In para-12 it has been alleged that the son of l
