Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1985 DIGILAW 1149 (ALL)

Riaz Uddin v. 12th Additional District Judge

1985-11-29

A.N.DIKSHITA

body1985
JUDGMENT A.N. Dikshita, J. - This is a tenant's petition arising out of proceedings u/s 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. 2. Respondent No. 2 Smt. Hazira Begum is the landlady of the premises in dispute No. 6/54, Galib Pura Kalan, Nai Ki Mandi, Agra. Respondent No. 2 filed an application for release of the accommodation in the aforesaid premises in occupation of the Petitioner. The application was based on personal need. 3. The Prescribed Authority after a detailed hearing and perusing the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the need of Respondent No. 2 was not genuine. On the question of comparative hardship also he recorded a finding in favor of the Petitioner and against the Respondent No. 2. Accordingly, the Prescribed Authority dismissed the application for release vide his Order dated 04.06.1976. 4. Aggrieved the Respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal to the Court of the District Judge, Agra which was transferred to the court of XII Additional District Judge, Agra. The appellate Court vide the impugned judgment and Order dated 14.10.1982 reversed the findings of the Prescribed Authority and recorded the finding that the need of the landlady-Respondent No. 2 was bonfire and genuine. After recording findings in her favor he allowed the application for release and directed the eviction of the Petitioner within three months. 5. The instant petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the Petitioner for quashing the Order dated 14.10.1982 passed by Respondent No. 1. 6. The findings recorded by the lower appellate court are findings of fact and ordinarily should not be set aside in proceedings Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India In this case however; there are certain reasons which necessitate the remand of the case to the appellate court. It is well settled that events which take place during the tendency of the writ petition and which decide the question involved in the release application are to be taken into consideration by the court. It is also settled that subsequent events cannot be examined by the High Court in the exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also settled that subsequent events cannot be examined by the High Court in the exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It appears from the record that the application for release was filed as the accommodation at the disposal of the landlady in house No. 6/76 Ghalibpura, Nai Ki Mandi, Agra, was tee inadequate. The persons who were shown to be the family members of the landlady and living in the above house No. 6/76 Ghalibpura included Irfan Ilabi and Mohd. Tahir. The record shows that Irfan Ilahi ceased to reside with Respondent No. 2 and started residing in house No. 7/90 Chota Galibpura, Agra. There is yet another fact that during the tendency of the writ petition Mohd. Tahir has purchased house No. 11/75 Karol Pada, Agra, on 25.07.1985 and is admitted by the learned Counsel for the landlady. It is also not disputed that Mohd Tahir has shifted to the aforesaid house purchased by him. In the circumstances the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that after the acquisition of the house by Mohd Tahir and his shifting to his own house the requirement of the landlady has been fully met and now she does not need any additional accommodation. This controversy whether the need of Respondent No. 2 has been met by the shifting of Mohd Tahir or whether she still needs additional accommodation cannot be decided by this Court. It is settled law that in such a situation the case ought to be remanded to the appellate court to examine the relevant questions afresh in the light of subsequent event which have taken place during the tendency of the writ petition. 7. In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned Order dated 14.10.1982 passed by Respondent No. 1 is quashed. The case is remanded back to the District Judge, Agra who shall either dispose it of himself or transfer it to some other court of competent jurisdiction for deciding the question whether the need of Respondent No. 2 still subsists in the change circumstances and also the question of comparative hardship afresh in the light of the observations made above. After the remand, the case should be decided expeditiously. No order as to costs.