Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1394 (ALL)

Prem Kumar Sharma v. Addl. Distt. Judge

2010-04-28

DEVENDRA PRATAP SINGH

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. This petition is directed against concurrent orders dated 4.4.2009 and 24.9.2009 by which the release application filed by the respondent-landlord has been allowed by both the courts below. 3. The respondent-landlord filed a release application under section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 against the petitioner with the allegation that they are tenants of the disputed accommodation since about 18 years at present rent of Rs.300 per month but they are bad payments. It was further alleged that when the premises was let out the family was small but now the son is married with children and the need arose for at least 8 rooms. It was contended with the allegation that the landlord had two houses, one situated in Durgawari Chowk where the landlord is staying and the other where the petitioner and other tenants were living. The landlord has a small family and he was no need for additional accommodation and in case of release, the petitioner would suffer greter hardship. Both the courts below after considering the bonafide need and comparative hardship of the parties, allowed the release application. 4. It is urged that there are other rooms and shops available in the disputed building and the petitioner was in possession of only one room and she has no other accommodation and therefore, the release order is vitiated. 5. The courts below have found that there were five adult members in the landlord family apart from four married daughters who keep visiting the family. It also found that the landlord was residing in only two rooms. Though there are other tenants in the building, the tenant cannot force the landlord to go for release of other accommodation and it was the choice of the landlord. Thus, it found the need to be genuine and bonafide. Further, it found that no genuine effort to search for another accommodation was made by the tenant, it allowed the release application. This finding of fact has not been shown to be perverse or against the evidence on record. 6. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected. 7. This finding of fact has not been shown to be perverse or against the evidence on record. 6. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected. 7. After the petition has been dismissed, learned counsel for the petitioner on instruction of his client, has given an undertaking that he would vacate the disputed premises within a reasonable time and would also pay the entire rent uptil that date. 8. Accordingly, the petitioner shall not be evicted from the disputed premises on or before 2.7.2010 provided he deposits the entire rent uptil 2.7.2010 with the court below within a period of three weeks from today. The money shall be released in favour of the respondent-landlord. In case of default, the petitioner shall be liable for eviction forthwith. The petitioner shall also handover the peaceful and vacant possession without creating any third party rights to the respondent-landlord on or before 2.7.2010.