Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1502 (ALL)

Bhudeo Gupta v. Addl. District Judge

2005-08-12

ANJANI KUMAR

body2005
ANJANI KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition filed by the petitioner-tenant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the orders passed by the prescribed authority and appellate authority under the provisions of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the Act ). ( 2 ) THE brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under: that the petitioner who is admittedly the tenant of the shop in dispute contested the application filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act whereby the respondent-landlord prays for the release of the shop in dispute for his bona fide personal requirement with the allegation that the landlord is a practising advocate and he does not have any place where he could consult his clients therefore, the shop in dispute which is most suitable place for establishing the chamber, may be released in his favour. The landlord further submitted that in fact the petitioner tenant does not require the shop in dispute inasmuch as he has already purchased the shop where he can start his business of medicine. This application filed by the landlord was contested by the petitioner on the ground firstly that the landlord is still a junior to some senior advocate and in fact does not require any place for establishing his chamber. Secondly the landlord is in possession of the open land where he can construct chamber. The prescribed authority after considering the material available on record has recorded a finding that the need of the landlord is bona fide and that the tilt of the comparative hardship is also in favour of the landlord. It was also found by the prescribed authority that the tenant is not carrying on any business from the disputed shop but in fact, he has sub-let the shop in favour of one Santosh kumar Verma. After the matter was decided by the prescribed authority the tenant has set up the case that his son has passed B. D. S. Examination, the shop in dispute is required by his son for establishing a dental clinic. The prescribed authority found that the tilt of the comparative hardship is also in favour of the landlord therefore, allowed the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. Aggrieved thereby the tenant preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The prescribed authority found that the tilt of the comparative hardship is also in favour of the landlord therefore, allowed the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. Aggrieved thereby the tenant preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority after considering the evidence and material available on record has found that the findings recorded by the prescribed authority on the question of bona fide need and also on the tilt of the comparative hardship do not warrant interference and therefore, affirmed the findings recorded by the prescribed authority. The appellate authority further found that since after filing of the application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act the tenant has not made any effort to find out any alternative accommodation is indicative of the fact that the tenant in fact does not require the shop in dispute and the plea taken by the landlord that the tenant has sub-let the shop to one Santosh Kumar Verma, is correct. Thus, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings recorded by the prescribed authority. ( 3 ) BEFORE this Court learned Counsel for the petitioner-tenant argued that since the petitioner has filed two applications during the pendency of the appeal which has been dismissed by the appellate authority and aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No. 11556 of 2004 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19. 3. 2004 holding as under : without expressing any opinion regarding merit of the impugned orders this writ petition is dismissed at this stage with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said orders also in case appeal is finally decided against him and he files writ petition against the final judgment and order of appellate court. ( 4 ) THUS, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is entitled for indulgence by this Court as he has been stopped from adducing additional evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the order rejecting the amendment application filed by the petitioner suffers from any error much less manifest error of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the order rejecting the amendment application filed by the petitioner suffers from any error much less manifest error of law. ( 5 ) NOW coming to the merits of the case since both the authorities have given finding on the basis of the material available on record with regard to bona fide requirement and comparative hardship in favour of the landlord, this Court will not sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the prescribed authority and affirmed by the appellate authority. ( 6 ) IT is then submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the findings arrived at by the prescribed authority and affirmed by the appellate authority are such that no reasonable person can arrive at. ( 7 ) IN view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash AIR2004 SC 3892 , 2004 (2)AWC1721 (SC), (SCSuppl)2004 (3)CHN152 , [2004 (3)JCR85 (SC)], JT2004 (4)SC 127 , (2004)3 MLJ72 (SC), 2004 (3)SCALE481 , (2004)3 SCC682 , this Court cannot reappraise the evidence in order to arrive at a different conclusion than that of the prescribed authority and appellate authority. ( 8 ) IN this view of the matter, this writ petition has no force and is dismissed. ( 9 ) LASTLY it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner is carrying on business from the disputed shop, therefore, he may be granted some reasonable time to vacate the same. ( 10 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice I direct that the petitioner shall not be evicted from the shop in dispute pursuant to the impugned order for a period of one year from today, provided : (1) petitioner furnishes an undertaking before the prescribed authority within six weeks from today that he will handover peaceful vacant possession to the landlord on or before 11. 8. 2006 ; and (2) petitioner pays to the landlord or deposits the entire arrears of rent/damages, if not already deposited before the prescribed authority, at the rate of rent till date within six weeks from today and continues to pay or deposits the same by first week of every succeeding month so long he remains in possession or till 11. 8. 2006 whichever is earlier. 8. 2006 whichever is earlier. The landlord will be entitled to withdraw the amount so deposited. ( 11 ) IN the event of default of any of the conditions referred to above, it will be open to the respondent-landlord to get the decree executed. . .