Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3665 (ALL)

Raj Rani Sharma v. Baikunthi Devi

2014-12-08

RAN VIJAI SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Ran Vijai Singh, J. Heard Sri Raghu Raj Singh Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Through this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 15.3.2008 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge A (Junior Division) Firozabad in P.A.Case No. 16 of 2014 (Smt. Baikunthi Devi and another Vs. Umesh Chandra Sharma and another) and order dated 30.8.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Firozabad in P.A.Appeal No.70/2008 (Raj Rani Sharma and another Vs. Baikunthi Devi and another). 3. Vide judgment and order dated 15.3.2008, application filed by the landlady seeking release of the accommodation in dispute has been allowed. Whereas by the subsequent order dated 30.8.2014, appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 15.3.2008 has been dismissed. 4. The facts giving rise to this case are that the respondents, herein, have filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P.Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act No. 13 of 1972 seeking release of the house in dispute on the ground of personal need. To this application, an objection was filed by the otherside. The parties have led their evidence. In the objection, the petitioners- opposite parties claimed themselves to be owner of the house in dispute on the basis of the will executed in their favour on 12.11.1965. The learned prescribed authority has framed three points of determination. (i) As to whether the applicants (respondents) happen to be owner/landlord of the house in dispute. (ii) As to whether the need of the applicants (respondents) is bonafide. (iii) In whose favour, comparative hardship is tilted. So far as point no. 1 relating to the owner-ship of the house is concerned, the learned prescribed authority has found the respondents to be owner of the house in dispute and the petitioners, herein as a tenant. The learned prescribed authority has found the need of applicants bonafide and allowed the release application vide judgment and order dated 15.3.2008. 5. Aggrieved petitioner has filed appeal before the learned District Judge. In the appeal, an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the petitioners. That application was allowed and the matter was remitted back vide judgment and order dated 25.3.2009 only for recording a finding regarding genuineness of the will on which the petitioners have based their claim. 6. In the appeal, an application under Order 41, Rule 27 of Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the petitioners. That application was allowed and the matter was remitted back vide judgment and order dated 25.3.2009 only for recording a finding regarding genuineness of the will on which the petitioners have based their claim. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that pursuant to the order dated 25.3.2009 passed by the appellate court, the prescribed authority has not recorded any finding regarding the genuineness of the will and the appellate court, ignoring the same, has passed the impugned order. 7. I have seen the appellate court's order. The appellate court has taken note of the order dated 25.3.2009 and the finding recorded pursuant thereto by the learned prescribed authority after remand to the effect that the alleged will is forged as Kaushalya Devi has never executed the will in favour of Chaturbhuj. 8. Both the courts below have recorded concurrent finding regarding pressing need of the landlord. The comparative hardship has also been assessed in favour of the landlord. Nothing could be pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner from which it can be inferred that findings recorded by both the courts below are perverse in any manner. 9. No ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. The writ petition lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are granted three months' time to vacate the accommodation in dispute peacefully and handover the possession of the same to the respondents.