Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2486 (ALL)

Mohammad Qamar v. Shamshadi Begum

2011-11-01

SHASHI KANT GUPTA

body2011
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. - 1. An application under Section 21 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short "Act") was filed by the landlady for release of the disputed shop on the ground of bonafide need to establish her two grand sons. The petitioner filed written statement and contested the release application. The Prescribed Authority by order dated 9. 2. 2011 allowed the said release application. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal under section 22 of the Act which was registered as P. A. Appeal No. 13 of 2011 and the same was dismissed by order dated 19. 8. 2011. Hence, the present writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the need of the respondent-landlady is neither genuine nor bonafide, and the comparative hardship tilts in favour of the petitioner. It was further submitted that the respondent-landlady, apart from two shops, has also got one vacant shop which can be utilized by her to settle her unemployed grand sons namely Mohd. Tareef and Mohd. Tahir. 3. Per contra, Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-landlady has supported the impugned orders passed by the courts below and submitted that the courts below have recorded a finding that the need of the Respondent-landlady is bonafide and genuine, and the comparatives hardship also tilts in her favour, and the said finding is based on record. It was further submitted that the aforementioned third shop is in fact not vacant and is under the tenancy of one Mohd. Lateef who is having cycle store in the said premises. The courts below have recorded a categorical finding that apart from the disputed shop, the petitioner has got two more shops in his possession and in case the petitioner is evicted, he will not suffer much loss. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-landlady and perused the record. 5. Both the courts below have recorded a finding of fact, holding the need of the landlady-respondent to be bonafide and genuine and the comparative hardship in favour of the landlady-respondent. The courts below have very categorically held that the two grand sons of the landlady are unemployed and do not have any other alternative accommodation to carry on any business. Both the courts below have recorded a finding of fact, holding the need of the landlady-respondent to be bonafide and genuine and the comparative hardship in favour of the landlady-respondent. The courts below have very categorically held that the two grand sons of the landlady are unemployed and do not have any other alternative accommodation to carry on any business. It has also been held that the petitioner has got two more shops in his possession and in case the petitioner is evicted, he will not suffer much loss. The said findings are based on the evidence available on record. Both the courts below have given cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while passing the order in favour of the landlady-respondent. The findings recorded by the courts below are neither perverse nor based on any extraneous or irrelevant consideration. The courts below have on meticulous evaluation of evidence and material available on the record, found the need of the landlady-respondent to be bonafide and genuine. This court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can not substitute its own opinion for 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 or based on inadmissible evidence or arrived at findings without evidence. 6. No other point was pressed on behalf of the petitioner. 7. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders. In the result, the writ petition is 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 landlady-respondent did not raise any objection to it. 9. In the result, the writ petition is 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 landlady-respondent 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 landlady-respondent without inducting any third person within a period of six months from today and will pay the entire arrears of rent including the current rent at the rate payable upto the date of delivery of the vacant possession of the disputed premises within one month from today. 10. In the event of default of any of the aforesaid conditions, the landlady-respondent will be at liberty to proceed to evict the petitioner, if necessary by coercive process with the aid of police force.