Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 596 (ALL)

Ramwati (Widow) v. C. L. Saparia

2011-03-09

RAKESH TIWARI

body2011
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J. - Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. Landlord respondent moved an application under section 21(1)(a) and 21(1)(b) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 for releasing the accommodation for use of his son who is M.Com. and is studying in LL.B. who desires to enter in the legal profession. It was also stated that the premises in dispute is not in good condition and requires reconstruction. 3. The tenant petitioner contested the case by filing her written statement stating that the premises in dispute is not in a dilapidated condition and that landlord's son has not yet passed LL. B. therefore the need has wrongly been set up. 4. The Prescribed authority allowed the release application directing the petitioner to vacate the accommodation within two months,by judgment and order dated 25.3.2009. This order was challenged in rent control appeal no. 7 of 2009 filed by the tenant petitioner. The appellate court too has confirmed the view taken by the prescribed authority, by judgment and order dated 8.1.2010. 5. Challenging the aforesaid orders dated 25.3.2009 and 8.1.2010 passed by the prescribed authority and the appellate authority respectively, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 6664 of 2010, which too was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 9.2.2010, directing the petitioner to vacate the shop. 6. In the execution case filed by the landlord, the petitioner tenant filed an objection stating that he was directed to vacate the shop which he is ready to vacate but there is no order for vacating the room which is on the first floor and is being used by her for residential purposes. The court below by the impugned order dated 21.2.2011 has rejected the petitioner's objection, against which the present writ petition has been filed. 7. From perusal of the order impugned, it is apparent that the shop is a two storied building. The High Court had directed the petitioner to vacate the shop which would include the room above it as the shop is two storied. According to the tenant petitioner, the order of eviction by the High Court means only the shop on the ground floor and not part of the shop on the room above. 8. The High Court had directed the petitioner to vacate the shop which would include the room above it as the shop is two storied. According to the tenant petitioner, the order of eviction by the High Court means only the shop on the ground floor and not part of the shop on the room above. 8. Once it is apparent from record that the shop is two storied, the order of the High Court cannot be interpreted by the tenant in the manner as is being interpreted by him. The tenant had also given an undertaking that he will hand over possession of the shop in dispute to the landlord, hence objection of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the court below as shop means whole of the shop under the tenancy and not part of the shop in the ground floor only. 9. There being no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Though undertaking has already been given by the petitioner for vacating the shop, but in the interest of justice and on humanitarian ground, the tenant petitioner is granted a month's further time to vacate the ground floor as well as first floor as prayed by his counsel. No order as to costs.