Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1667 (ALL)

Mohammad Anish and Others v. Sri Abdul Zabbar

2011-07-12

S.K.GUPTA

body2011
Shashi Kant Gupta, J.;- An application under Section 21 of U.P. Act No.13 (in short "Act") was filed by the landlord for the release of the disputed premises on the ground of bonafide and genuine need. The Prescribed Authority after considering the material on record allowed the said application filed under Section 21 of the Act by order dated 3.11.2009. Thereafter, feeling aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act which was registered as Rent Control Appeal No. 5 of 2009 and the same has been dismissed by order dated 15.4.2011. Hence the present writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority on the question of bonafide need and comparative hardship is illegal and arbitrary, and is based on a complete misleading of the case and misconception of legal position relevant to the matter, and has not considered the evidence on record in right perspective. It has been further submitted that the court below has wrongly held that the respondent-landlord is living in a rented accommodation although there were ample evidence on record that the landlord has his own house at Mohalla Ganesh Ganj. He further submitted that rent receipts issued were manufactured to establish the bonafide need of the landlord. He further submitted that the court below has not considered the parameters relating to bonafide need and comparative hardship in proper perspective. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B. D. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 4. A perusal of the record shows that the landlord is residing in the rented house and does not have any other residential accommodation. The court below has recorded a categorical finding that the House No. 99 does not belong to the landlord and in fact it belonged to her mother. The court below has also came to the conclusion, on the basis of the record, that the petitioner has got his own house and can accommodate himself on the upper portion of the garage which is being used for residential purposes and further held that the petitioner, during the pendency of the release application, did not make any attempt to search any other accommodation. 5. 5. Both the courts below after perusing the pleadings and evidence on record held that the need of the landlord is bonafide and genuine and the comparative hardship also tills in favour of the landlord. Both the courts below have recorded the findings of fact while holding the need of the landlord to be bonafide and genuine and the said findings are based on the evidence available on record. Both the courts below have given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reason while passing the order in favour of the landlord. The finding recorded by the courts below are neither perverse nor based on any extraneous or irrelevant material. The appellate court below has on meticulous evaluation of evidence and material available on the record, found the need of the petitioner to be bonafide and genuine. This court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can not substitute its own opinion to the opinion of the courts below unless it is found that the conclusion drawn by the lower court is erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable on a settled principles on the basis of pronouncement made by Apex Court or based on inadmissible evidence or arrived at findings without evidence. 6. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. I do not see any merit in the writ petition, the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 8. After the judgment was dictated, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that at least six months' time may be granted to him for vacating the premises in question. The learned counsel for the landlord did not raise any objection to it. 9. As urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, six months' time is granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises in dispute provided the petitioner gives his undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the prescribed authority within one month from today specifically stating therein that he will handover the peaceful possession of the said accommodation to the landlord opposite parties without inducting any third person within a period of six months from today. It is further provided that the petitioner shall pay the entire arrears of rent including the current rent at the rate payable upto the date of delivery of the possession of the disputed premises within one month from today. 10. It is further provided that the petitioner shall pay the entire arrears of rent including the current rent at the rate payable upto the date of delivery of the possession of the disputed premises within one month from today. 10. In the event of default in of any of the aforesaid conditions, the landlord opposite parties will be at liberty to proceed to evict the petitioner if necessary by coercive process with the aid of police force.