Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3230 (ALL)

Ideal Chemical Works v. A. D. J.

2016-09-21

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2016
JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal, J. -- Heard Sri B.K. Srivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Dhiraj Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Sri Manish Tandon has appeared for contesting respondents no. 3/1 to 3/3. 2. The disputed accommodation is house no. 110/79 Ram Krishna Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. The petitioner is a tenant therein whereas respondents no. 3/1 to 3/3 are its co-owners. They applied for its release under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The release application has been allowed by the Prescribed Authority and the judgment and order has been affirmed by the appellate court. 3. The contention of Sri Srivastava is that during the appellate stage the petitioner has moved application along with affidavit stating that the contesting respondents have acquired three other accommodations in a vacant state and as such they no longer need the premises in dispute. He further submits that his application for appointment of commission to inspect the above accommodations and to submit report report was illegally rejected and so was the application for accepting the municipal assessments in respect thereof. 4. The need set up by respondents no. 3/1 to 3/3 for the house in dispute was found to be genuine and bonafide by the Prescribed Authority. 5. The appellate court in paragraph 11 has categorically mentioned that the petitioner has acquired three other houses namely house no. 110/79 Ram Krishna Nagar, Kanpur, 127/452 Fazalganj, Kanpur and 117/H-2/71 Pandu Nagar and as such has no right to object to the release application. 6. Sri B.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the above three houses acquired by the petitioner are for commercial purposes.Since he has not acquired any place for residential purposes, he can not be non suited on the ground of availability of alternative accommodation. 7. The written statement as filed by the petitioner in paragraph 21 clearly states that two of the three houses so acquired ie. 110/79 Krishna Nagar and 123/452 Fazalganj are being used by him for commercial purposes and one at Pandu Nagar for residential purposes which means he has acquired sufficient commercial and residential accommodation of its own in the city of Kanpur. 8. Explanation to Section 21(1) (a) of the Act reads as under : - Explanation-. 110/79 Krishna Nagar and 123/452 Fazalganj are being used by him for commercial purposes and one at Pandu Nagar for residential purposes which means he has acquired sufficient commercial and residential accommodation of its own in the city of Kanpur. 8. Explanation to Section 21(1) (a) of the Act reads as under : - Explanation-. In the case of a residential building: - "(i) where the tenant or any member of his family(who has been normally residing with or is wholly dependent on him) has built or has otherwise acquired in a vacant state or has got vacated after acquisition a residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area, no objection by the tenant against an application under this sub-section shall be entertained." 9. In view of the above explanation it is clear that the petitioner having acquired atleast one residential accommodation has no right of objection to the release application filed under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. 10. The bonafide need as found to have been established by the Prescribed Authority and affirmed by the appellate court as such requires no interference in exercise of supervisory or extra-ordinary jurisdiction on any objection of the petitioner. 11. Sri Srivastava has also argued that since the accommodation in dispute is utilized by him for commercial purposes, he is entitle to two years of compensation as contemplated by Proviso 2 to Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act. 12. I am afraid that the accommodation in dispute is a residential house and merely for the reason that it is being used for commercial purposes as alleged by the petitioner could not attract the said Proviso for grant of compensation. 13. In the end learned counsel for the petitioner asked for some time to vacate the premises in dispute. 14. Sri Manish Tandon leaves it upon the Court to grant some suitable time for the purpose. 15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances three months time from today is allowed to the petitioner for vacating the premises in dispute provided he gives an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority on affidavit within a period of two weeks that he will vacate the same within the time stipulated and handover its vacant possession to respondents no. 3/1 to 3/3 and clears all outstanding dues. 16. The petition is accordingly dismissed with the liberty aforesaid.