Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 387 (ALL)

Braj Mohan Dixit v. Prem Krishna Tiwari

2015-02-25

RAJESH DAYAL KHARE

body2015
JUDGMENT Rajesh Dayal Khare,J. Heard Sri Pramod Jain, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Abu Bakht, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satya Priya Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the tenant of the property in question for which release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P.Act No. XIII of 1972 was filed by the respondent on the ground that they had purchased the property in question and is required for their personal need which was contested by the petitioner by filing written statement. Learned counsel further contends that the trial allowed the release application on vide order dated 03.04.2014 against an appeal under Section 22 of the Act No.XIII of 1972 was filed by the petitioner which appeal was also dismissed vide Judgement and order dated 19.01.2015 which orders are impugned in the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the details of the accommodation of the landlord was not given in the release application besides the fact that the three tenants had also vacated the premises in their possession therefore, their need is not genuine. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the respondents is living with his father which is tenanted accommodation of the company and after his retirement, the company officials are pressuring the respondents to vacate the premises in question and since no accommodation is available with the respondents in the district of Kanpur as such the respondents require the said accommodation for their personal need. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the averments made in the present petition and after perusing the orders impugned, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner could not made any good ground for quashing the orders impugned in exercise of powers conferred under writ jurisdiction. 5. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the orders impugned is refused. 6. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. 7. However, when the order of dismissal of the writ petition was dictated, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that sometime may be granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises in question. 8. 5. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the orders impugned is refused. 6. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. 7. However, when the order of dismissal of the writ petition was dictated, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that sometime may be granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises in question. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents did not oppose the prayer of the counsel for the petitioner but prays that the premises in question is situated in busy locality and the petitioner is paying rent @ of Rs. 600 per month, therefore rent may be enhanced till the vacation of the premises in question. 9. Accordingly, one year time from today is granted to the petitioner to vacate the premises in question provided the petitioner gives an undertaking on oath before the concerned Court below that he will vacate the premises in question immediately on or before last date of one year from today. It is further directed that in the meantime, the petitioner deposits rent @ 2500/- per month before the Prescribed Authority by 7th of each calender month. The amount so deposited by the petitioner is permitted to be withdrawn by the respondents-landlord. 10. In case of default in payment of rent as stated above, the protection granted by this Court shall automatically stands vacated.