Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2954 (ALL)

MUNNAN BIBI v. MANU

2007-12-11

SUNIL AMBWANI

body2007
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sunil Ambwani, J.—Heard Shri M.A. Qadeer, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Tabish Mohd for the petitioner and Shri Alok Kumar Gupta for the respondent-landlord. 2. The respondent-landlord filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for release of house No. 354/314 Rani Mandi, Allahabad, purchased by her on 12.5.1994 for her bonafide need. It was alleged that after the family partition in Court, the landlady and her husband, are living in house No. 47/52 Thatheri Bazar, Allahabad, consisting of one shop and one room. The passage in the room is through the shop. She has two grown up sons and a daughter. During the pendency of the proceedings, the two sons and daughter got married. It was alleged that after the partition, it was impossible for her to live in one room with her two grown up sons and daughters-in-law. The tenant with a family of eight members had two rooms and one varandah in their tenancy. 3. The Prescribed Authority found the bonafide need to be pressing and held that the tenant will not suffer greater hardship than the landlord in case the release application is rejected. This order dated 26.3.2002 releasing the premises in dispute was challenged in RCA No. 59 of 2002. 4. It is alleged that during the pendency of the appeal, the landlady acquired house No. 50A/57 Thatheri Bazar, Allahabad in the name of her daughters-in-law Smt. Dipika and Smt. Radha. This sale deed with malafide intentions did not show that they were married and did not disclose the name of their husband. It is contended that the acquisition of this house would satisfy the need of the landlady. 5. The appellate Court did not agree with the appellant-tenant and found that the acquisition of the house would not satisfy her bonafide need. The judgment dated 11.9.2007 dismissing the appeal is under challenge in this writ petition. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the landlady was also occupying a portion in the house of her husband’s brother, which may not have fallen to her share in occupation and that there were sufficient space in the house acquired by her in the name of daughters-in-law. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the landlady was also occupying a portion in the house of her husband’s brother, which may not have fallen to her share in occupation and that there were sufficient space in the house acquired by her in the name of daughters-in-law. It is further contended that the appellate Court has not considered the effect of acquisition of the house No. 50-A/57 Thatheri Bazar, Allahabad by her daughters-in-law; and that the judgment should have been written considering the bonafide need and comparative hardship separately taking into account additional evidence brought on record during the pendency of the appeal. 7. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, while exercising the powers to issue writ of certiorari, the Court has to do substantial justice between the parties. Every Judge has a method of writing his judgment. The nature of every case requires a particular manner in which the judgment may be written, giving the facts, the question of law, the issues and considering evidence and the argument which have been raised. The reasoning must be based on the evidence and tested on the case law cited before the Judge concerned. Any error in following these methods and in writing good judgment however should not be a ground to admit the writ petitions, if the judgment otherwise follows and serve the broader principles of law and does substantial justice between the parties. 8. After partition the landlady has one shop and one room in occupation, which was hardly sufficient for his two married sons and the daughters-in-law. The acquisition of house No. 50A/57 Thatheri Bazar, Allahabad through sale deed dated 29.5.2007 annexed to the writ petition as Annexure 18, would show that the house measures only 21.71 sqr mtrs out of which, only 11 sqr mtrs is constructed. There is a shop measuring 5.50 sqr mtrs on the ground floor and one room measuring 5.50 sqr mtrs on the first floor. This small accommodation would hardly sufficient to meet the need of the sons of the landlady. This at best may accommodate only one of her son with his wife with difficulty. The acquisition of this house cannot be said to have satisfied her need. 9. I do not find that the appellate Court has committed any such error in finding that the landlady continues to have pressing bonafide need for release of the accommodation. This at best may accommodate only one of her son with his wife with difficulty. The acquisition of this house cannot be said to have satisfied her need. 9. I do not find that the appellate Court has committed any such error in finding that the landlady continues to have pressing bonafide need for release of the accommodation. 10. The findings on the issue of comparative hardship also do not require any interference with such a pressing need with the landlady. She could not be denied the release of the accommodation in favour of the tenant, who did not care to find out any alternative accommodation during the pendency of the proceedings for last nine years. 11. The writ petition is dismissed. 12. With the consent of parties, the petitioner-tenants are allowed three month’s time from today to vacate the accommodation and to hand over peaceful possession to the landlord provided the petitioners-tenants file their affidavits of undertaking that they will hand over peaceful possession on or before expiry of three months or will not induct any other person in the premises and that they will pay the entire arrears of rent of accommodation and rent granted by the Court within 15 days. The undertaking shall also be filed before the Prescribed Authority within 15 days from today. ————