Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1615 (ALL)

Farid Ahmad Ansari v. Riasat Hussain

2016-04-28

SUNITA AGARWAL

body2016
JUDGMENT Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J. – Supplementary and counter affidavits filed today are taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Court below on the bona fide need of the landlord are under challenge in the present petition on the ground that the alternative accommodation available to the landlord in House no.81/221 and 81/225 were not considered by the Courts below. 4. The release application was filed for the need set up by the landlord for house no.80/48, Kuli Bazar, Kanpur Nagar. In the release application, specific stand was taken by the landlord that one room, kitchen, verandah and courtyard on the ground floor of the premise No. 80/48, Koolie Bazar, Kanpur Nagar is in tenancy of the opposite party. 5. The landlord has a large family and was living in a rented accommodation namely house no.45/40, Nai Sadak, Kanpur Nagar @ rent of Rs. 1200/- per month. He needed this house for his residence. 6. The Prescribed authority has recorded a categorical finding of fact that the landlord was living in a rented accommodation at the time of filing of the release application. 7. So far as the availability of accommodation in house no.81/221, Kuli Bazar, Kanpur Nagar, it was specifically stated by the landlord that the said house was given on rent to one Hafiz Quddus, who had filed his affidavit on 17.11.2009 before the Prescribed Authority. It was stated in his affidavit by Sri Hafiz Quddus that he was residing at the first floor of house no.81/221, Kuli Bazar, Kanpur Nagar. 8. This finding was challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Court by bringing on record the additional evidence by list No. 72-Ga. The Municipal Assessment record of the year 1987-92 of house no.80/48 and Municipal extract of the year 1987-92 for house no. 81/225, namely paper no.72 Ga/3 and papers No.72- Ga/5 were filed in evidence. These additional evidence filed by the petitioner were admitted by the Appellate Court. 9. Submission of the learned counsel for the petition is that the Appellate Court did not consider these papers while arriving at the finding on bona fide need of the landlord. The accommodation in vacant possession of the landlord was clearly proved with the help of these two papers before the Appellate Court. 10. 9. Submission of the learned counsel for the petition is that the Appellate Court did not consider these papers while arriving at the finding on bona fide need of the landlord. The accommodation in vacant possession of the landlord was clearly proved with the help of these two papers before the Appellate Court. 10. These documents are filed and are at page 125 of the paper book and page 11 of the rejoinder affidavit filed on 04.04.2006. 11. The release application was filed in the year 2008. The fact of accommodation being in vacant possession of the landlord on the date of filing of the release application or thereafter is not on record. On the basis of the above noted two documents namely paper no.75-Ga/3 and 75-Ga/2, the Municipal Assessment extracts of the year 1987-92, it cannot be a ascertained that the landlord was in possession of some rooms in premises no.80/48 and 80/225, Kuli Bazar, Kanpur Nagar, on the date of filing of the release application or any accommodation came in his possession during the pendency of the release application. 12. In view of the above, no infirmity is found in the findings recorded by both the Courts below. 13. No other evidence has been brought on record by the tenant to establish otherwise. 14. No other ground has been pressed. 15. Dismissed.