Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1836 (ALL)

Abrar Ahmad v. Jogendra Singh

2010-05-28

DEVENDRA PRATAP SINGH

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondent caveator. 2. This petition is directed against concurrent orders dated 9.10.2009 and 20.4.2010 by which the release application filed by the respondent landlord against the petitioner tenant 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.13 of 1972 with the allegation that the petitioner was a tenant of the disputed shop at Rs.600/- per month adjacent to which the landlord was running a medical store by the name of "Parvind Medical Store" for carrying out his business of medicines. It was further stated that his business had increased manifold and thus it became impossible to run his business from the small shop and therefore he needed the disputed shop which is adjacent to his existing shop and after removing the intervening walls, he would enlarge his shop. It was further stated that the petitioner was not doing any permanent business from the disputed premises and if his application is rejected, he would suffer greater hardship. 4. The petitioner tenant contested the application admitting tenancy but denying the need and stating that he is carrying out his electric repair business from the disputed shop which is the only source of livelihood and that the building was constructed after 1985 and therefore, the Act was not applicable. 5. After the parties had led their evidence, both the courts below have recorded categorical findings that the business of the landlord which had increased manifold is suffering as full stock of the medicines cannot be accommodated in the shop being used by him. It went on to find that the shop was constructed prior to 26.4.1985 and thus the provision of the Act was fully applicable. After recording findings of bonafide need and on the question of hardship, the application has been allowed. 6. It is urged that the courts below erred in law in holding that the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 was applicable even though the landlord failed to prove by any cogent evidence the date of its construction. 7. It is admitted that none of the parties had filed any assessment orders with regard to the disputed shop. The landlord had filed documentary evidence in the nature of permission for raising constructions, electricity connection etc. 7. It is admitted that none of the parties had filed any assessment orders with regard to the disputed shop. The landlord had filed documentary evidence in the nature of permission for raising constructions, electricity connection etc. to prove that the shop was constructed prior to 26.4.1985, which was believed by the courts below. Apart from a bald allegation, the petitioner failed to bring any authentic evidence on record to show that the construction was of subsequent period. Accordingly, the argument is not sustainable. 8. It is then urged that the landlord had other vacant accommodation but yet the courts below have wrongly held that he had bonafide need of the disputed shop. 9. The counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any substantive evidence to show that the landlord had other vacant accommodation available to him and, therefore, both the courts below were justified in recording the bonafide need of the landlord for the disputed shop. 10. No other point has been urged. 11. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected. 12. After the writ petition had been dismissed, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instruction of his client, states that a reasonable time may be granted by which he will handover the peaceful and vacant possession to the respondent landlord. 13. In view of the aforesaid undertaking, the petitioner tenant is directed to handover peaceful and vacant possession to the respondent landlord on or before 23.8.2010 without creating any third party rights. He is further directed to deposit the entire rent uptil 23.8.2010 within a month from today. In case of default of deposit of rent, the petitioner shall be liable for eviction forthwith. The respondent landlord would be entitled to realise of the said amount without security.