Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1092 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009 to Neeraj Dhall. This has specifically been replied by the landlord on affidavit that he had agreed to vacate the ground floor portion and, therefore, the first floor was offered to him as an alternative accommodation but subsequently he declined from his own assurance. It is also stated on affidavit that the petitioner no. 2 is doing job work by getting orders from different Universities and is getting printing work from the market which is hardly profitable and he gets only nominal commission. Thus he is suffering in day to day business. 13. In fact after going through the judgment, I realize that the courts have taken small and extraneous matter into consideration and not considered broadly the principles laid down for coming to definite conclusion whether the accommodation is required bonafidely or not and also regarding the comparative hardship. I have also noticed that the appellate court though has halfheartedly come to a conclusion that the landlords are suffering hardship but since the finding on the bonafide need was recorded against the landlord, the appeal has also been dismissed. The courts have strenuously tried to negate the case of the landlord ignoring specific assertions on affidavit. The court has also disbelieved the assertion that partnership stands dissolved for want of the partnership deed on one hand while they have refused to accept the document in evidence. 14. The Apex Court in the case of Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1999 Supreme Court, 100 has held that to deprive a landlord of the benefit of release on account of availability of alternative residential accommodation in another city is not a ground to disentitle the landlord from recovery of possession of tenanted accommodation. The Apex Court has categorically come to a conclusion that it is unnecessary to make endeavour as to how the landlords have adjusted in another accommodation. This is what exactly the courts below have done in the instant case. They have tried to somehow advise the landlord and also grant heavy consideration to the tenant only because they have set up a goodwill since last 40-50 years or because they do not have any other place to go. The courts below were liable to take into consideration that it is the landlord himself who is the best judge of his requirement. The courts cannot dictate how and where he should live. Same view was expressed in the case of Nanak Chand (since deceased) and others Vs. Jai Bhagwan, 2009 (1) ARC, 829. In the said case the landlord had sought release on the ground that he is retired and wants to live in his hometown and also to do the research work and write articles and papers on the subject of science and also teach some students free of charge. This court was of the view that it is a very valid ground and held that the landlord was entitled for his accommodation. Similar view was expressed in the case of Shamshad Ahmad and others Vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj (d) by L. Rs. and others, 2008 (3) ARC 532. Extract of relevant paragraph is quoted below:- "The Counsel is also right in submitting that admittedly, Matloob Ahmad had retired from service. Even if the tenant was right in submitting that
3 All] Dr. R.C. Agrawal and another V. Bharat Press and others 1093 the landlord belonged to a higher strata of society, it did not mean that all throughout his life after retirement, Matloob Ahmad, husband of applicant No. 6 should not do any work. If he wanted to get himself engaged in doing some business. It could not be held that he would not be entitled to possession of property for doing business since he was rich and even without doing any business, he could maintain himself. A finding as to bonafide requirement for doing ready made business by Matloob Ahmad has been expressly recorded by the Appellate Authority. The said finding was a finding of fact. Neither it could have been interfered with, nor it has been set aside by the writ Court. In view of the above position, the High Court was wrong in allowing the writ petition." 15. Ragavendra Kumar Vs. Firm Prem Machinery and Company, (2000) 1 SCC, 679, 2000 SCFBRC, 24, is another authority for the proposition that the landlord is the best judge of his own requirement for residential or commercial purpose and has complete freedom in the matter. In this authority the Apex Court has relied upon its earlier judgment in Prativa Devi Vs. T.V. Krishnan, (1996) 5 SCC, 353. 16. In Joginder Pal Vs. Naval Kishore Behal, (2002) 5 SCC, 397 : 2002 SCFBRC 388, the Apex Court with a reference to the provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, on the question of bonafide need, after surveying its earlier pronouncements, has held that the requirement of a major son and a coparcener in a joint Hindu family intending to start a business is the requirement of the landlord himself as was held in B. Balaiah Vs. Chandoor Lachaiah, AIR 1965 AP 435. The words "for his own use" must receive a wide, liberal and useful meaning rather than a strict or narrow construction. It has been further held that while casting its judicial verdict, the Court shall adopt a practical and meaningful approach guided by the realities of life. 17. In Mst. Bega Begum and others Vs. Abdul Ahad Khan and others, (1979) 1 SCC 273: 1986 SCFBRC 346, it has been held that rent control laws must be construed reasonably. They should be interpreted in such a way as to achieve the object of enabling landlord to evict tenant where the statute grants such right in favour of landlord. 18. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Akhileshwar Kumar and others Vs. Mustaqim and others, JT 2002 (10) SC 203 : 2003 SCFBRC 137, that landlord has the right of choosing the accommodation which would be reasonable to satisfy his requirements. In Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) it has been held by the Apex Court that the fact that landlady was in possession of another flat in another city is not a ground to disentitle her to seek recovery of possession of tenanted premises. 19. The Apex Court in Shakuntala Bai and others Vs. Narayan Das and others, JT 2004 (Suppl. 1) SC 538 : 2004 SCFBRC 338, has held that there is no warrant for interpreting a Rent Control legislation in such a manner. The basic object of which is to save harassment of tenants from
Page 1 and 2:
3 All] Smt. Katori Devi V. Nawab Si
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
3 All] Kailash Babu Gupta V. State
Page 9 and 10:
3 All] Anil Kumar Vashisth V. State
Page 11 and 12:
3 All] Anil Kumar Vashisth V. State
Page 13 and 14:
3 All] Smt. Sadhana Singh V. State
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
3 All] C/M, Lok Bharti Inter Colleg
Page 23 and 24:
3 All] Krishan Kumar V. State of U.
Page 25 and 26:
3 All] Smt. Raman Pandey and others
Page 27 and 28:
3 All] Smt. Shailendra Rai V. State
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
3 All] Rishi Pal Singh V. State of
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
3 All] Naik R.K. Mahapatra V. Chief
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
3 All] Jafar Khan V. State of U.P.
Page 55 and 56:
3 All] New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
3 All] National Insurance Co.Ltd. V
Page 63 and 64:
3 All] National Insurance Co.Ltd. V
Page 65 and 66:
3 All] Vinay Kumar Upadhyay V.State
Page 67 and 68:
3 All] Vinay Kumar Upadhyay V.State
Page 69 and 70: 3 All] Aligarh Muslim University an
Page 71 and 72: 3 All] Aligarh Muslim University an
Page 73 and 74: 3 All] Rishikesh Lal Srivastava V.S
Page 99 and 100: 3 All] Matloob Gaur V.State of U.P.
Page 107 and 108: 3 All] Ashutosh Kumar Tripathi V.St
Page 109 and 110: 3 All] Superintending Engineer and
Page 115 and 116: 3 All] Dr. R.C. Agrawal and another
Page 119: 3 All] Dr. R.C. Agrawal and another
show all

Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?