Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2871 (ALL)

Girraj Kishore v. Kishen Chand

2014-09-15

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2014
JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal,J. Heard Sri A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri P.K. Jain, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Rishi Kant Singh, learned counsel has appeared for the respondent. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the judgments and orders of the courts below allowing the release application of the respondent under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereby the shop in dispute has been ordered to be released in favour of the respondent after holding his need to be bona fide and that he would suffer comparatively more hardship than the petitioner. 3. The submission of Sri A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner is that there are two shops. One bigger and the other smaller which is in dispute. The respondent had applied for the release of both the shops. The release application in respect of both of them have been allowed but the appellate court while allowing the release application in respect of the bigger shop has issued direction that the respondent will provide the tenant of the said shop with an alternative accommodation elsewhere on the prevailing market rent whereas no such direction while releasing the smaller shop in dispute has been given though both the judgments are identical and similarly worded. 4. I have perused the impugned judgments and orders of the courts below. 5. In allowing the release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act it is not incumbent upon the court to direct for providing any alternative accommodation to the tenant. No provision of law has been shown where the tenant can get an alternative accommodation in the event the application of the landlord for the release of the shop has been allowed under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. 6. The argument that direction to this effect has been given in favour of the tenant of the bigger shop is of no substance. First for the reason that there is no provision to such an effect. Secondly, the case of the petitioner is different from that of the tenant of the other shop. The petitioner is found to be having an alternative accommodation where he can shift his business. Therefore, it was not considered proper and necessary to issue any direction for providing some alternative accommodation to him. 7. Secondly, the case of the petitioner is different from that of the tenant of the other shop. The petitioner is found to be having an alternative accommodation where he can shift his business. Therefore, it was not considered proper and necessary to issue any direction for providing some alternative accommodation to him. 7. Sri A.K. Gupta has argued that the appellate court in recording the above finding has not considered the affidavit of the petitioner which was before the prescribed authority that he has no alternative shop with him. 8. The prescribed authority in its judgment on consideration of the entire evidence has recorded a finding that the petitioner is in possession of a one another shop apart from the shop in dispute which is on rent and that he is having two residential houses which are big enough with sufficient rooms vacant and as such has accommodation available with him to easily shift his business. 9. In view of above finding of the prescribed authority, it is clear that the petitioner is having an alternative accommodation and therefore, it was not necessary for the appellate court to have issued any direction for providing any additional alternative accommodation to the petitioner. 10. Sri Gupta, in the end prayed for some reasonable time to vacate the shop in dispute. 11. Sri Jain, though opposes the prayer but leaves it upon the discretion of the court to grant some reasonable and suitable time if necessary. 12. In view of above, four months from today is allowed to the petitioner to vacate the shop in dispute provided an undertaking on affidavit is given before the prescribed authority within a period of one month that the petitioner would vacate and handover peaceful possession of the shop in dispute within time allowed as above and at the same time pays all the upto date dues. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed with the above condition.