Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1195 (ALL)

JAGDISH v. DINESH CHANDRA GARG

2006-04-28

ANJANI KUMAR

body2006
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Anjani Kumar, J.—The petitioners, who are tenant of the accommodation in question, by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have challenged the order passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 16th January, 2006, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners-tenants has been dismissed by the appellate authority against the order of the prescribed authority under ‘the Act’ dated 2nd August, 2004 by which the prescribed authority has allowed the release application filed by the respondents-landlords, copies whereof are annexed as Annexures ‘5’ and ‘3’, respectively to the writ petition. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that admittedly the respondents 1 and 2 are the landlords of the accommodation in dispute in which the petitioners are tenants. The landlords filed applications under Sections 21 (1) (a) and 21 (1) (b) of ‘the Act’ before the prescribed authority on the ground that the landlords bona fide requires the accommodation in question for their personal requirement and further that the ground floor portion of the accommodation in question is in dilapidated condition, which requires demolition and re-construction. This application was opposed by petitioner No. 1 by filing the written statement and the petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 did not file any written statement and the matter proceeded ex parte against them before the prescribed authority. The petitioner No. 1 denied the allegations made by the landlords and admitted that Smt. Pushpa Devi, the petitioner No. 2 is separately residing along with her children. It is contended that the need of the landlords is neither bona fide, nor genuine. It is further asserted that the landlords have a very huge accommodation in their possession, besides the accommodation in question. The respondent No. 1 Dinesh Chandra Garg has another house situated at Kachchi Sarak, Mathura and the respondent No. 2 Ramesh Chandra Garg is residing outside Mathura, thus the landlords in fact do not require the accommodation in question, nor their so called requirement is bona fide. It is further alleged by the tenants that no married daughter or her husband of the landlords is residing with the landlords. In fact after the death of Natthi Lal, his wife Smt. Shreemati, the petitioner No. 4 and his married daughters are residing in the accommodation in question. It is further alleged by the tenants that no married daughter or her husband of the landlords is residing with the landlords. In fact after the death of Natthi Lal, his wife Smt. Shreemati, the petitioner No. 4 and his married daughters are residing in the accommodation in question. The petitioners-tenants have also made effort to demonstrate that the sufficient accommodation is at the disposal of the landlords. The petitioners further raised an objection regarding maintainability of the present application under Sections 21 (1) (a) and 21 (1) (b) of ‘the Act’ on the ground that an earlier application under Section 21 (1) (a) of ‘the Act’ filed by landlord has been dismissed, therefore the present application is not maintainable or in any view of the matter the findings recorded by the prescribed authority and affirmed by appellate authority on the question of bona fide requirement shall be binding on the landlords. 3. The prescribed authority on the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record have arrived at the conclusion that it is admitted fact that earlier application for release filed by the landlords, referred to above by the petitioners-tenants, was dismissed in year 1982 and the present application has been filed in the year 2003, whereas under the provision of Rule 18 of ‘the Act, the second application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act’ would not be maintainable within one year of the disposal of the first application, therefore the objection raised by the petitioners-tenants that the second application, namely the present application filed by the landlords under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act’ would not be maintainable, cannot be accepted and therefore rejected the contention of tenants. On the question of bona fide requirement, the prescribed authority have recorded finding that the need of the landlords is bona fide and so far as the tilt of the comparative hardship is concerned, the prescribed authority recorded finding in favour of the landlords and allowed the release application filed by the landlords vide order dated 2nd August, 2004 and directed the petitioners-tenants to vacate the accommodation in question. 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 2nd August, 2004, passed by the prescribed authority, the petitioners-tenants preferred an appeal under Section 22 of ‘the Act’ before the appellate authority. Before the appellate authority same arguments were advanced as were advanced before the prescribed authority. 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 2nd August, 2004, passed by the prescribed authority, the petitioners-tenants preferred an appeal under Section 22 of ‘the Act’ before the appellate authority. Before the appellate authority same arguments were advanced as were advanced before the prescribed authority. The appellate authority on the question of maintainability of the present application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act’ has relied upon a decision of this Court reported in 1988 (2) ARC 612, Amal Chandra Datt v. IInd Additional District Judge, Allahabad and others and other decisions of this Court, wherein it is held that a second application is maintainable after one year of the decision of the first application under Section 21 (1) (a) of ‘the Act’. The appellate authority therefore held that in view of the settled legal position, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners-tenant that the second application is not maintainable is rejected. On the question of bona fide, the appellate authority dealt with the entire peace of evidence and pleadings of the parties and ultimately affirmed the findings arrived at by the prescribed authority that the need of the landlord is bona fide. On the question of comparative hardship again the appellate authority affirmed the findings of the prescribed authority, thus the appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners-tenants vide order dated 16th January, 2006. 5. Before this Court also, the petitioners-tenants has advanced the same arguments as were discussed by the prescribed authority as well as by appellate authority. On the question of maintainability of the present application under Section 21 (1) (a) of ‘the Act’, as held by this Court in the case, referred to above, is maintainable therefore the contention raised by learned Counsel for the petitioners-tenants is rejected, as the present application is maintainable in view of the fact that the earlier application was filed by the landlords in the year 1982 and the present application has been filed in the year 2003. On the question of bona fide, learned Counsel for the petitioners-tenants made an attempt that this Court should re-appreciate and re-evaluate the evidence on record, but in view of the recent decision of the apex Court reported in (2004) 3 SCC 682 , Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash, wherein the Apex Court has held that High Court will not appreciate evidence like an appellate Court by re-appreciating or re-evaluating the evidence while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In this view of the matter, this writ petition has no force and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Lastly it is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioners-tenants submitted that since the tenants are residing in the accommodation in question, therefore they may be granted reasonable time to vacate the same. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also in the interest of justice, I direct that the petitioners-tenants shall not be evicted from the accommodation in question pursuant to the impugned orders for a period of six months from today, provided : (1) petitioners-tenants furnish an undertaking before the prescribed authority within one month from today that he will hand over peaceful vacant possession to the landlords on or before six months from today; and (2) petitioners-tenants pay to the landlords or deposit the entire arrears of rent/damages, if not already paid to the landlords or deposited before the prescribed authority, at the rate of rent till date within one month from today and continues to pay or deposit the same by first week of every succeeding month so long he remains in possession or till six months from today, whichever is earlier. The landlords will be entitled to withdraw the amount so deposited by the petitioners-tenants. (3) in the event of default of any of the conditions referred to above, it will be open to the respondents-landlords to get the order executed. 7. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petition Dismissed. ———