Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2555 (ALL)

Mahendra Kumar v. Gyan Chandra Purwar

2014-08-21

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2014
JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal,J. Heard Sri Shiv Sagar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Manoj Gautam, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Petitioners are tenant in a shop situate in Mohalla Grant Ganj Bazar, Mahoba on a rent of Rs.30/- per month. The respondent, who is the owner and the landlord of the said shop, applied for its release under Section 21(1)(a) read with Section 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) both on the ground of bona fide need and dilapidated condition. The release application was allowed by the prescribed authority vide judgment and order dated 6.5.2014 on the ground of bona fide need alone. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the same has been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 26.7.2014. 3. Aggrieved by the order of release passed by the courts below petitioners have preferred this writ petition. 4. The submission of Sri Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners is that in the appellate court petitioners have moved an application for additional evidence to show that the respondent possesses three other shops and as such his need for the shop in dispute is not bona fide. The appellate court illegally rejected the application for additional evidences and simultaneously after hearing the appeal was also dismissed it on merits. 5. The prescribed authority on discussion of the entire evidence on record has returned categorical findings of fact that the need of the respondent for the shop in dispute is genuine and bona fide and that the petitioners have an alternative shop in his residence and would not suffer much hardship in comparison to the respondent. 6. The additional evidence filed by the petitioners in appeal is to the effect that the respondent possesses some land on the bye-pass road wherein one shop is already in possession of the son of the respondent whereas two other shops are available to him. The evidence included the copy of the extract of Khatuni showing that the some land is recorded in the name of the respondent and a photograph showing the existence of two shops. 7. The extract of the Khatauni sought to be produced in additional evidence only proves that the respondent is the owner of some land i.e. plot Nos. 369/2 and 391/4 but the existence of any shop on the said plots is not established by the Khatauni. 7. The extract of the Khatauni sought to be produced in additional evidence only proves that the respondent is the owner of some land i.e. plot Nos. 369/2 and 391/4 but the existence of any shop on the said plots is not established by the Khatauni. The photograph only shows that two incomplete structures with shutters on the front exist but it does not prove that the said shops are on the aforesaid plots of the respondent. 8. This apart the existence of any construction in the shape of shops on the bye-pass road is not material and relevant to satisfy the need set up by the respondent inasmuch as the need is for business purpose which can only be carried out from a commercial place and not from a place away from the market area on a bye-pass road. 9. In view of above, the appellate court is not in error in rejecting the application for additional evidence which was filed at a very late stage in appeal holding it to be irrelevant. 10. The appellate court has affirmed the findings which have been returned by the prescribed authority on bona fide need and no error or perversity in the same has been shown to me except for contending that the appellate order is just a repetition of the order of the prescribed authority. 11. The order of affirmation by the appellate court need not assign any additional reasons for holding the need of the respondent to be bona fide. It has simply to reiterate and affirm the reasoning which has been given by the prescribed if it is not found to be incorrect or wrong. Therefore, merely for the reason that it is repetitive in nature it would not stand vitiated in law. 12. Thus in the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the matter stands concluded by the finding of fact recorded by the courts below leaving no scope for judicial review in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. 13. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.