Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3855 (ALL)

Manish Mehra v. Ramlal Gupta

2015-12-07

SUNITA AGARWAL

body2015
JUDGMENT Sunita Agarwal, J. – Vakatlatnama filed by Shri Atul Dayal on behalf of the respondents be taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner is challenging the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below on bona fide need of the landlord for the shop in question. The challenge is on the ground that there exist a room on the ground floor which can be used for doing business by the landlord. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was rebutted by the landlord with the assertion that the said room is being used as a drawing room to entertain his guests. It has never been used as a shop. In order to establish his assertion, Municipal assessment record i.e. extract of the year 1987-92 paper no. 14/15 was filed by the petitioner which shows that only two shops have been recorded in the premises in question. 4. Both the courts below have recorded that from the extract of Municipal assessment it is established that only two shops exists in the building in question, out of which one is in occupation of Shiv Kumar Mehra-tenant and in another shop the petitioner is sitting tenant. 5. Challenging this finding, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had moved an application for issuance of commission to establish that the room at the ground floor was not being used as a "drawing room". The application for issuance of commission was illegally rejected on 6.3.2013. The petitioner is also challenging the rejection order as it has merged in the final order. 6. Testing this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner it is noteworthy that indisputably the building in question is of mixed use. At the ground floor of it there exist two shops as recorded in the Municipal assessment extract whereas at the first floor of it the landlord is residing. The contention of the landlord therefore that the room at the ground floor is being used for the residential purpose can not be doubted. This apart it is the choice of the landlord to use a particular portion of the building for a particular purpose. The tenant can not be guide in this respect. 7. The contention of the landlord therefore that the room at the ground floor is being used for the residential purpose can not be doubted. This apart it is the choice of the landlord to use a particular portion of the building for a particular purpose. The tenant can not be guide in this respect. 7. There is no other plea taken by the petitioner for challenging the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below. The court is,therefore, not inclined to interfere in the orders impugned. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submits that the petitioner may be given a reasonable time to vacate the shop in order to settle his belongings. 9. To this submission, learned counsel for the respondent has no objection. 10. 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 four weeks along with certified copy of the order that he shall vacate the shop in question on or before 10th, December, 2016. 2. The petitioner shall also deposit the enhanced monthly rent @ L 2000/- regularly in the pending proceedings under Section 30 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The amount so deposited may be withdrawn by the landlord. 3. In case of default of any of the conditions above, proceedings for his eviction may be initiated. 11. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.