Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2979 (ALL)

Jagarnath v. Amarnath

2014-09-23

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2014
JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal,J. Heard Sri Siddhartha Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri P.K. Jain, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Abu Bakht has appeared for respondent no. 1. 2. The application of the landlord under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of the shop in dispute has been allowed by the courts below. 3. Aggrieved, the petitioner tenant has preferred this writ petition. 4. The two arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that; first there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties; secondly, during pendency of the release application one of the shops of the respondent landlord fell vacant which has been let out to one Vinod Verma and therefore the need of the landlord is not bonafide. 5. It is contended that previously the father of the present landlord had filed civil suit no. 63 of 1999 wherein he had claimed that petitioner is an unauthorized occupant of the shop in dispute and therefore it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to contend that petitioner is a tenant so as to enable him to file application under Section 21 of the Act. 6. Sri Jain has pointed out that the pleadings of the suit no. 63 of 1999 were amended and the petitioner was stated to be a tenant. Accordingly, the said suit was no longer tenable and therefore SCC suit for eviction of the petitioner was instituted which is pending. 7. In view of the above, the plaint allegations of Suit No. 63 of 1999 does not affect the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. 8. The courts below have concurrently held that the petitioner has accepted Hari Narain, the father of the respondent landlord as the owner. He had deposited rent under Section 30 of the Act in his name alleging himself to be the tenant. Once the petitioner accepts the father of the respondent to be the owner/landlord and himself to be his tenant, it implidely creates relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Thus in view of the above, the petitioner can not deny that he is not the tenant of the shop in dispute. The finding in this regard recorded by the court below is a finding of fact which requires no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 9. Thus in view of the above, the petitioner can not deny that he is not the tenant of the shop in dispute. The finding in this regard recorded by the court below is a finding of fact which requires no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 9. The courts below on the question of bonanfide need has duly considered the argument of the petitioner about release of the shop said to be under tenancy of Jagdish Prasad.It has been concurrently held that the shop under occupation of Jagdish Prasad was actually in the tenancy of Vinod Verma and continues to be in his tenancy. It never fell vacant and was never available for use of the landlord. Moreover, the respondent landlord has denied ownership of the said shop and the petitioner has failed to prove that the said shop belongs to the landlord. 10. In view of the above findings there is no scope of judicial review in exercise of writ jurisdiction in the matter. 11. The petition has no merit and is dismissed.