Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 641 (ALL)

RAGHUVIR SINGH v. RAJ KUMAR

2002-05-03

ANJANI KUMAR

body2002
ANJANI KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Shri P. N. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vishnu Sahai and Shri h. S. N. Tripathi for the contesting respondents. ( 2 ) THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioner-tenant seeking quashing of the order of the appellate authority passed in an appeal filed under Section 22 of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, confirming the order of the prescribed authority under Section 21 (1) (a) of the said Act, whereby the application of the three landlords for release of the said accommodation on the basis of their bona fide requirement was allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri P. N. Saxena argued that from the perusal of the provisions of Section 21 (1) (a) which is reproduced below, it is apparent that the satisfaction which is to be recorded by the prescribed authority before releasing the accommodation in favour of the landlord, must also contain as to whether the need of the landlord will be satisfied by releasing only part of the accommodation or full accommodation in occupation of the tenant is required, to be released. This question was not raised either before the prescribed authority or appellate authority, as suggested by Shri Vishnu Sahai representing the respondents. Section 21 (1) (a) is reproduced below : "21. Proceedings for release of building under occupation of tenant.-- (1) The prescribed authority may, on an application of the landlord in that behalf, order the eviction of a tenant from the building under tenancy or any specified part thereof if it is satisfied that any of the following grounds exists, namely : (a) that the building is bona fide required either in its existing form or after demolition and new construction by the landlord for occupation by himself or any member of his family, or any person for whose benefit it is held by him, either for residential purposes or for purposes of any profession, trade or calling, or where the landlord is the trustee of a public charitable trust, for the objects of the trust. " ( 3 ) SHRI Sahai relied upon a decision in 1980 ARC 311 wherein this precise question is answered by a Division Bench of the Apex Court holding that the High Court should not have rejected the stand of the tenant only on the ground that the plea was not taken before the authorities below. In reply to the aforesaid contention and decision, Shri Vishnu Sahai for the respondents has argued that the principles laid down by the aforesaid decision will not apply to the facts of the present case for the reasons ; (i) that there are three applicants in the release application and the accommodation in dispute contain three rooms, so after release of the entire accommodation, one room will fell in the share of one applicant for the release, i. e. , landlords. ( 4 ) THE prescribed authority has rightly not gone into the question as to whether release of the part of the accommodation will satisfy or not. Shri Sahai further submitted that there is yet another reason for supporting his case that the said principle and decision will not apply because when the prescribed authority after going through the pleadings and evidence on record, have recorded the satisfaction for entire house in dispute, that it should be released in favour of the landlord, it is presumed that in arriving at that satisfaction, the prescribed authority has considered this part also that the release of the part of the accommodation will not serve the purpose. ( 5 ) I am in full agreement with the contesting respondent that the principle laid down by the Apex court in the case in 1980 ARC 311 (supra) are not applicable to the facts of the present case. For other argument, learned counsel for -the petitioner tries to assail the findings on bona fide and comparative hardship, that being concurrent findings of fact, this Court will not interfere under article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 6 ) THIS writ petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed being devoid of merit. ( 7 ) SHRI P. N. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the Instant case, the petitioner may. be granted some reasonable time to vacate the accommodation in dispute because he has to make arrangement for suitable accommodation. ( 7 ) SHRI P. N. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the Instant case, the petitioner may. be granted some reasonable time to vacate the accommodation in dispute because he has to make arrangement for suitable accommodation. Without entering into merit or otherwise of the submission, in the interest of justice, I direct that the order passed by the prescribed authority and confirmed by the appellate authority shall not be given effect to till 2. 11. 2002 on the following conditions : (i) that the petitioner-tenant will give an undertaking before the prescribed authority within one month from today that he will handover the peaceful vacant possession of the accommodation in dispute on or before 2. 11. 2002 ; and (ii) that the petitioner-tenant will deposit, if not already deposited, arrears of rent and damages calculated at the rate of rent, for use and occupation till date and continue to deposit the same, till he vacates the premises or till 2. 11. 2002, whichever is earlier. .