Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1436 (ALL)

Tulsi Dass v. Nirmala Gaur and Others

2012-07-03

SHASHI KANT GUPTA

body2012
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. 1. An application under Section 21(1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (in short the "Act") was filed by the respondents for release of the disputed premises on the ground of bonafide and genuine need. The Prescribed Authority after considering the material available on record allowed the said application by order dated 26.08.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 22 of the Act, which was registered as Rent Control Appeal No. 84 of 2009 and the same was dismissed on 28.05.2012. Hence the present writ petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 3. The Respondents/Landlords filed an Application against the petitioner/tenant for release of the disputed premises under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 with respect to the shop situated at Premises No. 32/37, Old Sabzi Mandi, Ghumani Bazar, Chawk, Kanpur on the allegation that Gauri Shankar was the tenant of the disputed shop at the monthly rent of Rs. 200/- and after his death, his son Tulsi Das became the tenant of the disputed shop. It was further alleged that the disputed shop was required for establishing respondent nos. 2 and 3 in the business. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed written statement denying and disputing the averments made by the respondents. 5. Both the courts below have recorded the finding of fact holding that the respondent no. 2 does not have any alternative accommodation for carrying on his business and can not be compelled to carry on his business from his residential accommodation. It was further held that the petitioner/tenant has himself admitted that he is in possession of one shop and godown and not in possession of two shops. It was further held by the Courts below that the petitioner did not make any effort to search out any alternative accommodation during the pendency of the release application and the petitioner has got alternative accommodation to carry on his business. 6. Both the courts below have recorded the findings of fact holding the need of the landlord to be bonafide and genuine and the comparative hardship tilts in favour of the landlord, 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. 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 landlord 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. 7. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. In the result this 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 respondents/landlords 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 give 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 respondents/landlords 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 landlords-respondents will be at liberty to proceed to evict the petitioner, if necessary by coercive process with the aid of police force. _