Back
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
PRABHAT KISHOR – Appellant
Versus
RUKMANI DEVI – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ashish Naithani, J.
1. The Petitioner is a tenant-turned-property-transferee of premises situate at Rama Market, Haridwar Road, Rishikesh, District Dehradun. Originally, the premises were the subject of P.A. Case No. 01 of 2013, instituted by the Respondent under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 seeking release for the alleged bona fide requirement of her grandson. During the pendency of those proceedings, the parties entered into a written compromise dated 22.04.2013, duly verified before the Prescribed Authority. Under the said compromise, it was mutually agreed that the ownership and possession of the tenanted premises bearing No. 435, Rama Market would vest in the Petitioner, whereas the Respondent would acquire the terrace portions of properties bearing Nos. 433 and 434 and the staircase. The compromise further recorded that the parties would execute the consequential sale deeds.
2. In view of the said compromise, the release application was disposed of on 23.04.2013 by the learned Prescribed Authority on agreed terms. It is further case of the Petitioner that despite repeated requests, the Respondent did not execute sale deeds in terms of the compromise
Amendments to pleadings in eviction proceedings should be allowed liberally when they pertain to the core issue of bona fide requirement and availability of alternate accommodations.
The amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC can be rejected if it's belated and lacks due diligence, especially when it does not materially impact the bona fide requirement.
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 concept of bona fide need requires a genuine desire for premises, and the landlord's choice of accommodation should be respected by the court.
Amendment in pleadings - Since lower appellate court is final court on facts and the suit is pending since year 2000, it would be appropriate to remand back matter to lower appellate court with liber....
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.
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
