Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1213 (ALL)

Puspa Lata v. Rajendra Kumar Bajpai

2010-04-15

DEVENDRA PRATAP SINGH

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondent caveator. 2. This petition by the tenant is directed against concurrent orders allowing an application of release in favour of the respondent landlord under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. It appears that the respondent landlord moved an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act which was registered as P.A. Case No. 1 of 2005 with the allegations that he was the owner and landlord of the disputed shop which was in the tenancy of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month but she defaulted in payment of rent from 1.11.2001. It was further stated that he himself was a Doctor practising in a rented shop but his son, who has obtained a B.Ms. Degree from Bangalore, has returned to Jhansi but has nowhere to practice his profession and therefore, the said shop was required to settle him as there is no other premises available. 4. The petitioner filed his objection denying tenancy and the ownership of the respondent and claimed that the disputed premises was settled in his favour by the brother of the erstwhile owner and the need of the respondent was neither genuine nor bona fide. 5. Trial Court framed three issues including the issue of the relationship between the parties. After going through the evidence of the parties including documentary evidence filed by the respondent it held that the petitioner was a tenant of the respondent landlord and that question of title was not involved in the said proceedings. After examining that the son had duly passed his B.Ms. Examination and had no other place to practice his profession, it held that the need was genuine and bonafide and after finding that the petitioner has another shop available at Naresh Complex and she had made no effort during the pendency of the petition to search for alternative accommodation, thus it held that the landlord would suffer greater hardship if the application is rejected. The resultant appeal has also been dismissed. 6. The resultant appeal has also been dismissed. 6. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the effect of a First Information Report dated 1.9.2004 and that of a complaint dated 16.10.2004 which had been brought on record by the petitioner and which clearly shows that she was not a tenant, has not been considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any evidence or even pleading to show that the First Information Report was ever brought on record or proved. Though the complaint is alleged to have been brought on record but it does not show that the complaint was proved. Even otherwise, there was irrefutable evidence in the nature of public documents to show that the petitioner in fact was a tenant of the respondent landlord, the aforesaid two documents could not rebut the presumption raised in favour of the relationship. Thus, even otherwise the said two documents do not help the petitioner. 7. The counsel for the petitioner has taken the court through the findings recorded by the courts below but has failed to point out any error, much less an apparent error, on the face of record. 8. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected. 9. After the matter had been heard and rejected, the learned counsel for the petitioner upon instruction of his client, has given an undertaking that in case some reasonable time is granted to vacate the premises, he will handover vacant possession within the said period and would pay the rent also. 10. Accordingly, the petitioner shall not be evicted from the disputed premises on or before 16.7.2010 provided he deposits the entire rent uptil 15.7.2010 within four weeks from today with the trial court which shall be released in favour of the respondent-landlord. The petitioner shall handover the vacant and peaceful possession to the respondent landlord on or before 16.7.2010 without creating any third party rights. 11. In case of default, this interim protection would stands automatically withdrawn and the petitioner shall be liable for eviction forthwith.