Advocates:
['MANISH TANDON', '', 'SATYA DHEER SINGH JADAUN', 'DHIRENDRA MOHAN CHAUDHARY']

1

Reserved on :- 25.08.2021

Delivered on :- 06.09.2021

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 59743 of 2016

Petitioner :- Shiv Shankar Gupta Since Deceased And 3 Ors.

Respondent :- Ram Shankar Gupta Since Deceased And 7 Ors.

Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Tandon,Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun

Counsel for Respondent :- Dhirendra Mohan Chaudhary

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

1. Heard Sri Manish Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioners and

Sri Dhirendra Mohan Chaudhary, learned counsel for the

respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the tenants/petitioners praying

for quashing of the impugned order dated 05.11.2016 passed by

Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Kanpur Nagar in Rent

Appeal No. 87/2008 “Ram Shankar Gupta Vs. Shiv Shankar

Gupta”.

3. Release Application No. 2 of 2005 was filed by original

landlord/respondent no. 1, Ram Shankar Gupta against original

tenant/petitioner no. 1, Shiv Shankar Gupta, setting up the need of

his son, Ram Chandra Gupta. It was pleaded that Ram Chandra

Gupta is employed in Indian Airforce and is transferred from one

place to other resulting in disturbance in education of his children.

Therefore, he wants to settle his daughter-in-law, grand daughter

and grand son in the house in dispute. His grand daughter is 50%

disabled and patient of epilepsy. It was claimed that the need of the

landlord is bonafide and genuine.

4. The objection was filed to the release application by the

tenant/petitioner no. 1 stating that the need setup by the landlord is

not genuine and bonafide. His son, Ram Chandra Gupta, is posted at

Delhi as Squadron Leader in Indian Airforce. He is living at Delhi

2

with his family. The grand daughter of the landlord is getting proper

treatment in Delhi and is also living with her father and other family

members. The landlord and his sons have other vacant premises in

Kanpur City and other places where they are residing comfortably.

The landlord was pressurizing him to enhance the rent exorbitantly

which was refused by him. Hence, the present application has been

filed. The tenant is occupying the ground floor consisting of

godown, verandah and courtyard @ Rs. 25/- per month, including

all taxes, on the ground floor of the Premises No. 74/217,

Dhankutti, Kanpur Nagar. In case he is evicted therefrom, his

business would be ruined. He is unable to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month

as rent. The godown is not fit for residence of the landlord’s son and

his family since it is located in commercial place full of hustle and

bustle where no one can stay or recover from illness. The case of the

landlord is neither genuine nor bonafide and the release application

may be dismissed.

5. The release application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority by

the judgement and order dated 18.08.2008 with the finding that the

grand children of the landlord are getting education at Delhi and

they are residing there.

6. The aforesaid order was challenged by the landlord/respondent no.

1 by way of Rent Appeal No. 87 of 2008 (Ram Shankar Gupta Vs.

Shiv Shankar Gupta). During pendency of appeal, the landlord and

tenant both died and were duly substituted by their legal heirs and

representatives in the memo of appeal. The appellate court has

allowed the appeal by the impugned judgement and order dated

05.11.2016 and aggrieved by the same, the tenants/petitioners have

approached this Court.

7. Learned counsel for the tenants/petitioners has submitted that the

appellate court has gone beyond the pleadings of the release

application and setup a new case regarding the need of Prem

3

Shankar Gupta, Om Shankar Gupta, Shiv Kumar Gupta, Om

Prakash Gupta, Krishna Kumar Gupta, Dinesh Gupta, Ram Chandra

Gupta and Manoj Kumar Gupta, sons of the landlord, apart from the

need of grand children of the landlord. Without any specific finding,

either of the residential or commercial needs of the landords, the

appellate court has released the p