Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 764 (ALL)

Shanti Devi v. A. D. J. Muzaffarnagar

2014-03-04

SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2014
JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal,J.: - Heard Sri Rajeev Mishra, Advocate assisted by Sri Atul Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 2. The petitioners are tenants in respect of shop in dispute for which respondents-landlords filed application 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"), which has been allowed by Prescribed Authority vide judgment dated 18.10.1996 recording findings of bona fide need and comparative hardship in favour of applicants-landlords and thereagainst petitioners' appeal has been dismissed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 8, Muzaffarnagar vide judgment dated 30.01.2001. 3. Sri Rajeev Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that at appellate stage petitioners filed additional evidence in the form of affidavits, i.e., papers No. 33 C to 36 C but that have not been considered at all. 4. However, I find no force in the submission. The affidavits of petitioners were contradicted by landlords also by filing their own affidavit, i.e., paper No. 38 C. Having considered the same Appellate Court found that applicant no. 1/4, Deepak Kumar, for whose benefit shop in question was required, is unemployed, and, besides the shop in question, he has no other accommodation to run his business. The petitioners-tenants could not adduce any evidence whatsoever to dislodge this inference drawn by Appellate Court and before this Court also nothing has been shown to show any perversity in the aforesaid finding. 5. Coming to the question of comparative hardship, the Lower Appellate Court has found that tenants have another shop at Khatauli G.T. Road but since the landlords have no other shop and the applicant No. 1/4 is already unemployed, having reached the age of 35 years, even comparative hardship lies in landlords' favour. 5. Coming to the question of comparative hardship, the Lower Appellate Court has found that tenants have another shop at Khatauli G.T. Road but since the landlords have no other shop and the applicant No. 1/4 is already unemployed, having reached the age of 35 years, even comparative hardship lies in landlords' favour. The findings recorded by Lower Appellate Court in respect of bona fide need and comparative hardship, read as under: ^^izkFkhZ la[;k 1@4 nhid dqekj fookfnr nqdku dk ;g ekfyd gS rFkk og csjkstxkj gS vkSj mldks vius dkjksckj djus ds fy, bl nqdku dh vko';drk gSA bl nqdku ds vykok nhid dqekj ds ikl vU; dksbZ nqdku miyC/k ughaA vihykFkhZx.k foi{khx.k ,slk dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha dj lds gS ftlds vk/kkj ij ;g dgk tk lds fd izkFkhZ la[;k 1@4 nhid dqekj csjkstxkj gS vFkok og dksbZ dkjksckj djrk gSA** ^^mDr rF;ksa ds lUnHkZ ,oa ifjizs{; esa ;fn rqyukRed dfBukbZ dk ewY;kadu Hkh fd;k tk;s rks ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd fookfnr nqdku [kkyh gksus ij vihykFkhZx.k&foi{khx.k dks vf/kd dfBukbZ ugha gksxhA ysfdu ;fn fookfnr nqdku vihykFkhZx.k @ foi{khx.k ls [kkyh ugha djkbZ tkrh gS rks rqyukRed n`f"V ls izkFkhZ la[;k 1@4 nhid dqekj dh dfBukbZ dbZ xq.kk vf/kd gksxh D;ksafd og csjkstxkj gS vkSj mldh vk;q Hkh yxHkx 35 o"kZ dh gks pqdh gSA og fookfnr Hkh gS vkSj mls vius ifjokj ds jgu&lgu ds fy, vkenuh dk lk/ku Hkh tqVkuk gSA mlds ikl fookfnr nqdku ds vykok vkSj dksbZ Hkh nqdku ugha gS vkSj ugha mlds ikl vkenuh dk dksbZ oSdfYid Jksr vFkok lk/ku gSA** "Applicant no. 1/4 Deepak Kumar is the owner of the disputed shop; he is unemployed and he is in need of this shop to run his business. No shop is available with Deepak Kumar except this one. Appellants/opposite parties have not been able to adduce any evidence, on the basis of which it can be said that applicant no. 1/4 Deepak Kumar is unemployed or he runs any business." "In context of and in reference to the said acts, if comparative hardship is also assessed, it transpires that on the disputed shop being vacated, the appellants/opposite parties will not have much difficulty. But if the disputed shop is not got to be vacated by the appellants/opposite parties, applicant no. 1/4 Deepak Kumar will comparatively have multi-fold difficulty and his age, too, has grown to be 35 years. But if the disputed shop is not got to be vacated by the appellants/opposite parties, applicant no. 1/4 Deepak Kumar will comparatively have multi-fold difficulty and his age, too, has grown to be 35 years. It is also disputed that he has also to garner means of income so as to maintain his family. He does not have any shop other than the disputed one, nor does he have any alternative source or means of income." (English translation by the Court) 6. In absence of anything to show that aforesaid findings of fact recorded by courts below are perverse or contrary to material on record, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. 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. 7. I, therefore, find no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.