Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1412 (ALL)

Vimla Devi Srivastava v. Vineet Mishra

2010-04-29

DEVENDRA PRATAP SINGH

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondent caveator. 2. This petition by the tenant is directed against concurrent judgments dated 16th December 2005 and 20th March 2010 by which the release application of the respondent landlords has been allowed by both the courts below. 3. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the landlords have another house at Pandu Nagar and therefore their need was not genuine and bonafide. 4. No doubt premises no.117-H-2/101 situated at Pandu Nagar is a residential house but it is in the name of the father of the landlords. Both the courts below have found that both the landlords are married and have children and they have their independent business which is being run from one of the shops situated in the disputed building. It has further been found that in the house of Pandu Nagar, apart from the father, several tenants were in occupation thereon and apart from the disputed premises, none of the two landlords had any other accommodation in the City. This is a finding of fact which cannot be interferred with at this stage. 5. It is then urged that the requirement of the landlord as set up in the release application was for eight rooms and the petitioner is tenant in only one room and she is having no other place to live and therefore neither the need of the landlord would be fulfilled nor the comparative hardship would be in his favour. 6. It is correct that the two landlords have set up their need for eight rooms but the petitioner has only one room and other amenities. However, this by itself would not mean that there was no bonafide need. Apart from that the Courts have found that the house at Pandu Nagar was at some distance and the education of their children were also suffering apart from the fact that they were not being able to run their shop from the disputed premises properly. Thus, it was found that the need of the landlords would be satisfied to some extent. This is also a finding of fact which has not been shown to be perverse. 7. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected. 8. Thus, it was found that the need of the landlords would be satisfied to some extent. This is also a finding of fact which has not been shown to be perverse. 7. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected. 8. However, the counsel for the petitioner after obtaining instruction from his client has given an undertaking that he would vacate the premises within a reasonable time fixed by the Court and would also deposit the rent thereof. 9. Accordingly, the petitioner shall hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the disputed premises to the respondent landlord on or before 31st of July, 2010 and would also deposit the entire rent for the period uptil 31st of July, 2010 within a period of four weeks from today with the court below which shall be released in favour of the respondent-landlord. In case of default of depositing the rent, the decree shall be executed forthwith.