Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3 All] Dr. R.C. Agrawal and another V. Bharat Press and others 1091
to climb 50 steps on second floor and
the courts were completely misled while
rejecting the release application.
12. I have heard the respective
counsels at length and also examined
two judgments in detail as well as
various documents filed in support of
the respective submissions. On a close
scrutiny of the judgments and arguments
advanced by the learned counsels
appearing on behalf of the petitioners
and respondents, it is apparent that the
judgments are not legally balanced.
Both the courts while holding that the
petitioner no. 1 is having two big houses
at Sultanpur as well as taking into
consideration the fact that he is a retired
eye surgeon at Sultanpur has completely
lost sight of the fact that now the same
retired man is living at Allahabad with
his son on the second floor and he
cannot be compelled to live in
Sultanpur. He may have a number of
houses in different cities but it is
absolutely immaterial. It is not for the
court to direct the landlord to choose the
place where he should reside, specially
in the instant case where the courts
below have completely given a goodbye
to the consideration that the petitioner
no. 1 is an old ailing man having heart
problem and if he wants to live with his
son and his family, it ought to have been
respected. The courts cannot compel the
petitioner to live and run business in a
particular city or in a particular
building, specially the courts were liable
to take into consideration that the
petitioner no. 2 is the only son of the
petitioner no. 1 and if he has preferred
to live with him despite the misery of
scaling steep stairs every day, the
findings cannot be said to be justiciable,
specially when both the courts have
accepted the fact that the petitioner no.
1 is a heart patient but declined to
release on the basis of an assumption
that he is living in Sultanpur. Some
stray prescriptions have been relied
upon to come to this conclusion whereas
it is amply explained that he had gone to
Sultanpur for a few days and some of
his old acquaintances approached him
and he had written out the said
prescriptions. The ground of bonafide
need has not been accepted only on
account of the finding that he has two
houses at Sultanpur but the courts
completely overlooked the fact that it is
situated outside the municipal limit of
Allahabad where the landlord has
preferred to reside in his old age with
his only son. The appellate court has
also gone to the extent of taking into
consideration some family settlement
which cannot be taken into
consideration and it is something
between the landlords interse. Both the
courts have completely failed to
appreciate the grounds as well as
evidence on record and also the fact that
all the printing machineries and
appliances are kept at the residence of
petitioner no. 2 on the second floor. In
fact while declining to accept the case
of the landlord, the courts have relied
upon seal of the treasury on the back
side of the stamp of first page of
dissolution deed which mentions
19.5.1998. It is absolutely insignificant
as this was not a case or objection set up
by the tenant. It is not unusual, old
stamps are in possession and there is no
limitation for using them. No inference
can be drawn on its basis. While coming
to conclusion against the landlord the
courts below have taken into
consideration that first floor portion was
vacated by some tenant and was given