Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2261 (ALL)

Ram Kumar (Dead) v. Ram Swarup Sarma (Dead)

2012-09-25

SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN

body2012
JUDGMENT Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. Heard Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the tenants petitioners. 2. Release application filed on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 by landlords respondents against the tenants petitioners in the form of P.A. Case No.69 of 1995 has been allowed by both the courts below. The Prescribed Authority/ J.S.C.C. Agra allowed the release application on 11.01.2008. Appeal filed against the same in the form of R.C.M. Appeal No.13 of 2008 has been dismissed by A.D.J., Court No.7, Agra on 03.08.2012. The main argument of learned counsel is that Ram Babu, son of the landlord for whose need shop in dispute (rent of which is Rs.200/- per month) was sought to be released was working in a factory. Sri Ramednra Asthana, learned counsel for the tenants petitioners has vehemently argued that the courts below decided the matter against the tenants petitioners only on the ground that they could not show that Ram Babu was permanent employee or temporary or casual which was a wrong approach. On inquiry from court learned counsel for the petitioner states that Ram Babu is working as machine man in a private factory. Machine men are not paid good salary by private factory owners. Even if Ram Babu is working as such still the need to start business from the shop in dispute cannot be said to be not bona fide. The income from the business will be several times more than the salary paid by the private employer. Doing some job till the shop is vacated does not mitigate against the bona fide need vide "Ramkubai v. Hajarimal Dhokalchand Chandak" AIR 1999 SC 3089 and "Sait Nagjee Pursushotham and Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal" AIR 2006 SC 770 . Release application was filed in the year 1995, seventeen years before but till the decision of appeal petitioners did not make any effort to search alternative accommodation. Supreme Court in AIR 2003 SC 2713 "Badrinarayan Chunilal Bhutada v. Govindram Ramgopal Mundada" has held that if tenant does not make any effort to purchase or take on rent an alternative accommodation after filing of the release application, then balance of hardship tilts against him. 3. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. 4. Tenants petitioners are granted six months' time to vacate on the following conditions. 1. 3. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. 4. Tenants petitioners are granted six months' time to vacate on the following conditions. 1. For this period of six months, which has been granted to the tenants-petitioners to vacate, they are required to pay Rs.6,000/-( at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month) as rent/damages for use and occupation. This amount shall be deposited within six weeks before the Prescribed Authority and shall immediately be paid to the landlord-respondent. 2. Within six weeks from today tenants-petitioners shall file an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority to the effect that within six months they will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlord-respondent. 3. If within six weeks undertaking is not filed or amount of Rs.6,000/- is not deposited then from today till actual eviction tenant shall be liable to pay Rs.2,000/- per month as rent/damages for use and occupation. 4. Similarly if after filing undertaking and depositing the aforesaid amount of Rs.6,000/- property in dispute is not vacated within six months (by 25.03.2013) then since after six months till actual vacation tenants petitioners shall be liable to pay rent/damages @ Rs.2,000/- per month. 5. It is needless to add that this direction of payment of Rs.2000/- per month is in addition to the right of the landlord to get the accommodation in dispute vacated through execution.