Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3546 (ALL)

Amit Kumar v. Sushila Devi

2015-11-16

SUNITA AGARWAL

body2015
JUDGMENT Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The release application was filed in the year 2009 by the respondent for the need set up for her son Deeraj Kumar. During pendency of the release application, landlady's elder son Ritesh Kumar had died. The objection filed by the tenant was amended with the assertion that now with the death of one son of the landlady, the shop which he was occupying in the premises in question is available for another son and as such the need set up by the landlady has been satisfied. 3. In rebuttal thereto, the landlady filed an affidavit categorically stating therein that she is continuing in the business which was being run by her son Ritesh Kumar with the help of her servants. Her second son Deeraj Kumar wants to settle himself in an independent business who is sitting idle and the landlady wants to augment her earning to meet the need of the family with the business which was being run in the shop earlier occupied by her son Ritesh Kumar. These findings of fact have not been assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. On the comparative hardship, the Courts below have written a categorical finding that the tenant has not been able to establish that he has made sincere efforts to get an alternative accommodation. There is also observation of the Courts below that the shop is being run by the tenant's brother and not by him. 5. This Court does not find any justification to interfere in the findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below on the basis of evidence on record. 6. However, at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be granted a reasonable time to vacate the shop in question. To this submission, Sri Tarun Varma, learned counsel for the respondent has raised objection and submits that the release application is pending since 2009 and the tenant is paying a meagre amount i.e. Rs.1200/- per month towards rent. 7. In view of submission of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view of the interest of justice, it is provided that: - 1) The petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.2000/- towards rent by 7th of each month for a period of six months beginning from 1st December, 2015. 7. In view of submission of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view of the interest of justice, it is provided that: - 1) The petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.2000/- towards rent by 7th of each month for a period of six months beginning from 1st December, 2015. 2) The petitioner shall file an undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the Court below within a period of three weeks alongwith certified copy of this order that he shall vacate the premises in question on or before 1.6.2016 and shall pay the rent regularly as indicated above. (2) In case, the petitioner fails to furnish the undertaking or vacate the shop in question or pay the rent regularly within the time provided above, proceedings for his eviction may be initiated in accordance with law. 8. The writ petition is dismissed.