Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2337 (ALL)

Mohd. Rashid v. Abdul Gaffar

2014-08-05

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2014
JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal,J. Heard Sri Swetashwa Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Utpal Chatterji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Petitioners are the tenants in the house in dispute. The respondents landlords applied for its release under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for their personal need. The release application has been allowed by the prescribed authority vide judgment and order dated 22.7.2003 and the same has been affirmed by the appellate court vide judgment and order dated 21.1.2009. Both the courts below have concurrently recorded that the need of the landlords for the house in dispute is genuine and bonafide and they will suffer more hardship in case it is not released in their favour. 3. The aforesaid findings are pure findings of fact and there is no perversity in any of the findings. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any flaw in the reasoning given by the courts below. 5. He submits that during pendency of the appeal, respondents landlords have acquired one another house and therefore their need, if any, stands satisfied by the same. The said argument was repelled by the appellate court on consideration of the affidavits paper no. 39 Ga and 59 Ga submitted on behalf of the respondents landlords. In the said affidavit it has been stated that on account of acute shortage of residential accommodation with them they had temporarily taken one room on rent to meet out the immediate hardship. Thus, a finding has been returned that the respondents landlords have not acquired any other property and that the house in dispute is the only accommodation available to them for residential purpose. 6. In view of the above finding, there is no substance in the argument that during pendency of the writ petition, the respondents landlords have acquired alternative accommodation. 7. On the other hand, during pendency of the writ petition the respondents landlords have filed an affidavit stating that petitioners no. 4 and 5 have acquired premises in a vacant state which has not been controverted by filing any reply and therefore the petitioners are barred from taking any objection to the release application in view of explanation (i) to the 4th proviso to section 21 (a) of the Act. 8. 4 and 5 have acquired premises in a vacant state which has not been controverted by filing any reply and therefore the petitioners are barred from taking any objection to the release application in view of explanation (i) to the 4th proviso to section 21 (a) of the Act. 8. In view of the above, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.