Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 114 (ALL)

Lali Devi v. XVII Additional District Judge Agra

2000-01-20

S.N.AGGARWAL

body2000
Judgment S.N. Aggarwal, J. (1) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.8.1995, releasing Shop No. 14/1/10 situate in Jama Masjid, Police Station Mantola, Ward No. Nil, Agra and the order of the Appellate authority dismissing the appeal against the said order on 29.11.1999. (2) The facts, in brief, are that Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the Act) with the allegations that they purchased two shops bearing No. 14/1/9 and 14/1/10, adjoining to each other, situate in Jama Masjid for their personal need. Smt. Lali Devi the petitioner was tenant of Shop No. 14/1/10 and her husband Lachchhu Babu Yadav is tenant of Shop No. 14/1/9. Kali Charan Goel, Respondent No. 3 requires the shop for carrying on business of preparation, manufacture and sale of 'Petha' while Subhash Chandra Goel. Respondent No. 4 requires it for his Chambers as he is an Advocate. The application was contested by the tenants. They denied the averments made by them. The Prescribed Authority, by this order dated 24.8.1995 allowed the application in respect of Shop No. 14/1/10 but rejected the application in respect of Shop No. 14/1/9. It was found that Kali Charan Goel has no other shop to carry on business but the version of respondent No. 4 that he requires another shop under the tenancy of Lachchhu Babu Yadav, is not required by him and against this order the petition preferred Appeal No. 173 of 1995 and Respondent Nos. Sand 4 filed Appeal No. 177 of 1995. Both these appeals have been dismissed by Appellate Authority on 29.11.1999. I have heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.D. Mandhyan, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents. (3) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the finding that Kali Charan Goel requires the disputed shop for carrying on business as alleged by him. He is carrying on business in a shop situate in Fulatti Bazar along with his father. His father is carrying on business of sale of 'Tetha'. The Prescribed Authority, on consideration of material evidence on record, came to the conclusion that Jawahar Lal Goel along with his another son Rakesh is carrying on business in the said premises and it is not available to Kali Charan Goel, Respondent No. 3 for carrying on business. His father is carrying on business of sale of 'Tetha'. The Prescribed Authority, on consideration of material evidence on record, came to the conclusion that Jawahar Lal Goel along with his another son Rakesh is carrying on business in the said premises and it is not available to Kali Charan Goel, Respondent No. 3 for carrying on business. This finding has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority. It has been found that Kali Charan Goel has no other suitable accommodation to carry on business. I do not find that this finding is erroneous in law. (4) The next submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Prescribed Authority, while considering the hardship, took the view that the tenants are owners of property No. 18/3/95, Nala Mantala, Agra and as the petitioner and her husband have alternative accommodation in the said property and there are certain shops, the petitioner shall not suffer any hardship. It is con tended that the said property was sold by a registered sale-deed on 2.12.1997 and this fact was also admitted by the landlord-respondents and after such property having been sold, the petitioner will have no other alternative accommodation to carry on business of sale of 'Petha' which she is carrying on in the disputed premises. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no other shop in property No. 25/52 as held by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority. In Mst. Bega Begum and other vs. Abdul Ahad Khan and other, AIR 1979 SC 272 , it has been held that the mere fact that the tenant has no other alternative accommodation, shall not be a ground to reject the application. The property is alleged to have been sold during the pendency of the appeal and it was found by the Appellate Authority that in the said property there were various shops and some of them were available to carry on business. If the petitioner or her husband required another shop for carrying on business of sale of 'Petha' it should not have been sold. (5) It may further be noted that Shop No. 14/1/9 is in the tenancy of the husband of the petitioner where he is carrying on business in the name and style "Pawan Pavitra Bhojnalaya." The application of the landlords against him has been rejected. (5) It may further be noted that Shop No. 14/1/9 is in the tenancy of the husband of the petitioner where he is carrying on business in the name and style "Pawan Pavitra Bhojnalaya." The application of the landlords against him has been rejected. The shop in question under the tenancy of the petitioner is adjoining to the said shop. She can shift her business of sale of 'Petha' in the same premises. (6) The writ petition is dismissed. In the end learned Counsel for the petitioner prayed that some time may be granted to the petitioner to vacate the disputed premises. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is granted six months time to vacate the disputed premises provided she gives an undertaking on affidavit before the Prescribed Authority within two weeks from today that she will vacate the disputed premises within the time granted by this Court and would hand over its peaceful possession to the landlord-respondents. Petition dismissed.