Nov - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1094 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009 unscrupulous landlords. The object is not to deprive the owners of their properties for all time to come. 20. Smt. Sharda Devi Vs. Colonel Dinesh Chandra and others, 1977 ARC 46, is an authority for the proposition that if a landlord owns house at several places and needs one of several other houses to settle after retirement, need is genuine and landlord can settle at any place of his liking. Tenant cannot superimpose his wishes on landlord. 21. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Meerut and others, 2007 (68) ALR, 555, the Court was of the view that it is settled position of law that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose. 22. In the case of Mohd. Ayyub Vs. District Judge, Lucknow and another, 2007 (68) ALR, 603, it was held that bonafide need and requirement of a premises for business purposes and augmentation of income for oneself and for the family cannot be negativated in any circumstances. The intention to establish son in his career and the requirement of the premises for the same purpose cannot be termed as malafide. Need of landlord to settle his son in independent business cannot be defeated on mere fact that the son was working in a tailoring shop. Every individual has a right to settle himself independently in business. 23. This Court in the case of Harish Bhatia Vs. Smt. Johra Begum, 2008 (71) ALR, 857, has held that to establish her son in business the landlady could establish the business of her son from the room available on the second floor and it is not for the tenant to dictate to the landlord how he should adjust without getting possession of the tenanted premises. 24. In the case of Mohabbey Ali Vs. Tej Bahadur and others, 2009 (2) ARC, 715 the Court declined to look and examine comparative hardship of the tenant. An identical situation appear in the instant case, the tenant has nowhere stated that he has tried to look an alternative accommodation whatsoever, after initiation of the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority. In such a circumstance, I am of the view that the tenant is not entitled for comparison of his hardship while recording a finding on the question. In the case of Sushila Vs. IInd Additional District Judge, 2003 (1) ARC, 256 similar view was adopted. Also in the case of Gulab Bai Vs. Nalin Narsimonia, (1993) 3 SCC, 483 the Apex Court held that the tenant should make an effort to search for an alternative accommodation and a specific assertion is essential to establish his 'hardship'. 25. The Apex Court held that the word 'reasonable requirement' undoubtedly postulate that there must be an element of need to a mere desire or wish. The view taken by the Apex Court was that the distinction between desire and need should doubtless be kept in mind but it should not be extended so far as to make even a genuine need as a desire. Perusal of two judgments apparently has stretched its arms too long while declining to accept the need of the landlords as 'bonafide'. Stray circumstances have been given tall
3 All] Dr. R.C. Agrawal and another V. Bharat Press and others 1095 meaning only to discard the evidence and the contention of the landlord. It is eloquent on the face of the two judgments of the courts below that conscious and deliberate effort has been made to negate the valid contention of the petitioners. 26. In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is a foregone conclusion that the need of the landlord is genuine, bonafide and the landlords are defenitely suffering greater hardship and they are entitled for release of the two shops in possession of respondent nos. 1 and 2. Both the father and son have conclusively pleaded and affirmed their independent need for a vacant accommodation and therefore, both the shops are liable to be released in their favour. I am not inclined to remand the matter for afresh decision. Admittedly, father is a very old man and remand of the case might render the entire purpose of institution of the release application fruitless. The Apex Court in the case of G. C. Kapoor Vs. Nand Kumar Bhasin and others, AIR 2002 Supreme Court, 200 allowed the release application straightaway setting aside the findings of the Prescribed Authority, Appellate Authority and the High Court on the question of bonafide need and comparative hardship. The Apex Court was of the view that no fruitful purpose will be solved in remanding the matter and thereby opening another gate of fresh series of litigation. Similar view was adopted by the Apex Court in the case of R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Viswesaraswami V.P. Temple and another, 2004 All. C.J., 304 (S.C.). 27. I am conscious of the fact that this Court cannot reevaluate the evidence and substitute its own findings because two views are possible. A bare perusal of the release application, objections filed by tenants and the various affidavits it is abundantly clear that the landlords (petitioners) who are owners, require the shops for their personal need. They are the first and the rightful claimant to use their own property as they want it. This is a situation where father and son with their spouses are facing a number of problems and therefore the release of the shops cannot be refused. The very purpose of the Act stands frustrated if the two judgments of the courts are left to stand. 28. In the circumstances and for the reasons detailed herein above the writ petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated 11.8.2008 passed by the Small Causes Court, Allahabad in P.A. Case No. 13 of 2005 and judgment and order dated 28.5.2009 passed by the Additional District and Session Judge, Court No. 12, Allahabad in Rent Control Appeal No. 119 of 2008 are quashed. 29. In the end, learned counsels for the tenants have made a request for granting some time to the tenants to vacate the shops in question. However, the request of the learned counsels for the tenants that some time may be allowed to vacate the shops in question appears to be reasonable and justified. 30. The tenants are permitted six months' time from today to vacate the shops in question and handover vacant possession to the landlord till 25.4.2010 provided they file an undertaking within a period of four weeks before the
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 121: 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?