Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 285 (ALL)

Suresh Chand v. Ramesh Pareekh (Since Deceased)

2014-01-22

SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2014
JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal,J.: - Heard Sri Akhilanand Pandey, Advocate holding brief on behalf of Sri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Madhav Jain, Advocate for respondents no. 1 to 14. 2. The respondents-landlords' application filed under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") has been allowed by Prescribed Authority vide judgment dated 04.04.2012 and the same has been confirmed by Lower Appellate Court vide judgment dated 06.11.2013 while dismissing petitioner's Rent Control Appeal No. 41 of 2012. These two orders are impugned in this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that violation of Rule 17 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules, 1972") has not been considered by courts below. 4. The submission is thoroughly misconceived inasmuch as Rule 17 of Rules, 1972 has no application in the case in hand since it was not a case where accommodation was intended to be released on the ground of demolition or new construction but the landlords required accommodation to be released on the ground of personal need. 5. It is next contended that personal need of only family members could have been looked into but the application has been preferred in respect of others, which was not maintainable. However, despite repeated query, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out as to who was not the family member for whose benefit accommodation was required to be released by landlords. All the persons are either lineal decedents or otherwise constitute members of family as defined under Section 3(g) of Act, 1972. 6. Lastly, it is contended that application is barred by Section 29 of Act, 1972 but here also nothing could be shown as to how it is barred by Section 29. Moreso, both the courts below have recorded finding of fact that construction of a room by tenant incurring his own expenses with the consent of landlords was not proved at all and in respect of aforesaid finding counsel for petitioner has completely failed to point out any perversity or illegality. 7. The scope of judicial review in these matter under Article 226/227 is very limited and narrow as discussed in detail by this court in Writ Petition No. 11365 of 1998 (Jalil Ahmad Vs. 7. The scope of judicial review in these matter under Article 226/227 is very limited and narrow as discussed in detail by this court in Writ Petition No. 11365 of 1998 (Jalil Ahmad Vs. 16th Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others), decided on 30.07.2012. There is nothing which may justify judicial review of orders impugned in this writ petition in the light of exposition of law, as discussed in the above judgment. 8. I, therefore, find no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed.