Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 444 (ALL)

Krishna Swaroop Srivastava v. Ram Nath Chaurasia

2015-03-10

RAJESH DAYAL KHARE

body2015
JUDGMENT Rajesh Dayal Khare,J. List of fresh cases has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Dharmendra Pal Singh learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Prabhat Kumar Dubey and Sri S. Niranjan learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dhruv Narayan learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 12.1.2015 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 16 Kanpur Nagar in Rent Appeal No. 59 of 2013 and the judgment and order dated 18.7.2013 passed by Prescribed Authority, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Case No. 21 of 2010. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is tenant of the shop which is portion of house No. 80 Tiwaripur-II Manas Vihar, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar for the last 20 years, in which he carries on his business of Allopathic Medical Store having a valid licence. It is contended that the respondent is landlord of the premises in question who has more than 80% of the premises in his possession including one shop which is of equal size of the shop which is in possession of the petitioner. It is next contended that respondent landlord moved application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972(hereafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground of bona fide need which was contested by the petitioner by filing his written statement and after adducing of evidence by the parties, the said application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority vide judgment and order dated 18.7.2013. Aggrieved from the aforesaid order of the Prescribed Authority, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 19 of the Act before the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar which appeal has been dismissed vide order dated 12.1.2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that bare perusal of the application of the landlord would show that it is not clear whether the said application is under Section 21(1)(a) or 21(1)(b) of the Act. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the application was filed under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, which has been rightly allowed by the court below, which orders suffer from no infirmity in law, which may call for any interference by this Court for quashing the same. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the application was filed under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, which has been rightly allowed by the court below, which orders suffer from no infirmity in law, which may call for any interference by this Court for quashing the same. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the orders impugned and the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner could not make out any good ground which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders impugned. 7. Accordingly, the prayer for quashing the orders impugned is hereby refused. 8. Present petition lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs. 9. After the order was passed, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that some reasonable time may be given to the petitioners for vacating the premises in question. 10. Accordingly, six months from today is granted to the petitioner for vacating the premises in question subject to payment of monthly rent by 07th of each calendar month till handing over the actual possession to the respondent-landlord and also the petitioner shall give an undertaking on oath before the court below within fifteen days from today with regard to vacation of the premises in question within six month. 11. The amount so deposited by the petitioner may be permitted to be withdrawn by the respondents-landlords, after due verification by the courts below. 12. In case of default of conditions mentioned above, this protection granted to the petitioner shall automatically stand vacated.