Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1290 (ALL)

Jai Prakash Goel v. Hazi Saleem Ahmad

2014-04-22

SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2014
JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal,J.: - Writ petition has been restored to its original number vide order of date passed on recall application. As requested by learned counsel for the parties, the same is taken up for hearing and is being disposed of finally. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 3. Petitioner's application for release of accommodation in question, which is a shop, on the ground that his son, Sunil Kumar, is unemployed and he wants him to settle in business, was allowed by Prescribed Authority vide judgment and order dated 19.02.2004 but the said judgement has been reversed by Lower Appellate Court while allowing tenant's Rent Control Appeal No. 06 of 2004 vide judgment dated 01.02.2006. 4. The Lower Appellate Court has found that before filing release application in 2000, there were four firms run by petitioner-landlord, i.e., M/s Goyal Engineering Works, M/s Tayal Krishi Yantra Udyog, Ganesh Trading Company and Madan Lal and Sons. Petitioner, in release application, has disclosed only about M/s Goyal Engineering Works stating that he and his son, Sunil Kumar were partners therein and now aforesaid firm has been closed rendering Sunil Kumar unemployed. Nothing was disclosed about remaining firms, whether they are continuing or closed and who are the proprietors and partners. I find that before this Court also nothing has been said about these firms by petitioner in the entire writ petition. Petitioner has also not disclosed as to how many sons and daughters he has and in what manner they are engaged or not, in business run by petitioner. The Lower Appellate Court in these facts and circumstances has recorded a finding of fact that landlord has not come with clean hands and I find no error or perversity therein. 5. There is another aspect of the matter. On 10.04.2003 petitioner sold another shop situate in 968, Mohalla Khalapar, Muzaffar Nagar. If he was in need of the shop, the said shop could have been used by him but information regarding this fact was also not disclosed by petitioner. 6. 5. There is another aspect of the matter. On 10.04.2003 petitioner sold another shop situate in 968, Mohalla Khalapar, Muzaffar Nagar. If he was in need of the shop, the said shop could have been used by him but information regarding this fact was also not disclosed by petitioner. 6. The third aspect is that one Intezar was one of the tenant of petitioner in his property at 968, Mohalla Khalapar, Muzaffar Nagar but the petitioner stated in his affidavit that he is not aware of any person named Intezar and no such person was his tenant though in the municipal assessment record produced before Lower Appellate Court Intezar was shown as tenant in the property, i.e., 968, Mohalla Khalapar, Muzaffar Nagar of which Jai Prakash Goel, petitioner, was shown as owner. 7. Looking to all these facts and circumstances, which have not been shown perverse or contrary to record, the Lower Appellate Court has found that petitioner has not come with clean hands and concealed material information. Before this Court also nothing could be shown by learned counsel for the petitioner so as to warrant any interference in the findings recorded by Lower Appellate Court. 8. In view of above, the writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.