Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3227 (ALL)

Ashok Kumar v. Har Bhajan Singh

2015-10-13

SUNITA AGARWAL

body2015
JUDGMENT Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Both the courts below have recorded the finding that shop in question of the son of the landlord is only 9.x10"ft. x 6.3"ft.The need set up in the release application is for expansion of the shop in which the landlord's son is doing ply-board business. There is a Commissioner report which indicates that the shop of the landlord's sons is too small to keep the stock of the business being carried on by him. The bonafide need of landlord is found genuine and pressing. 3. Challenging the finding recorded by both the courts below, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the finding of fact is against the evidence on record. The pleadings in the written statement is that the landlord is in occupation of the godowns in the same premises has not been considered.Moreover, a shop has been released in the name of landlord in the Rent Case no. 5 of 2010 and as such the need set up in the instant release application has been satisfied. 4. Both the courts below have recorded a categorical finding of fact that the godown which is stated to be in occupation of the landlord is on rent. The shop which has been released in Rent Case no. 5 of 2010 is for the need of the landlord himself and no benefit can be derived by the petitioner for the same.In this view of the matter the findings of facts for the need set up by the landlord for expansion of business of his son is found genuine and pressing. 5. A question was put up to the learned counsel for the tenant to show as to whether any effort has been made by him to get any other shop on rent. No plausible answer has been given by him. The tenant has not made any effort to get the accommodation,the comparative hardship therefore tilts in favour of the landlord. 6. In view of the above discussion no good ground is made out to interfere in the findings of fact recorded by both the courts below. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that the petitioner-tenant undertakes to vacate the shop in question,he may be granted time to settle his belongings. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents has not disputed this contention. 9. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that the petitioner-tenant undertakes to vacate the shop in question,he may be granted time to settle his belongings. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents has not disputed this contention. 9. In view of this submission, it is provided that : - 1. the petitioner shall file an undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the court below within a period of six weeks along with the certified copy of the order that he shall vacate the shop in question on or before 1st November, 2016. 2. In case, the petitioner fails to handover the vacant possession or furnish the undertaking within the time given above, appropriate proceeding for his eviction shall be proceeded in accordance with law. 10. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed.