Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 981 (ALL)

Vinod Chandra Mittal @ Vinosh Chandra Mittal (Decd. ) v. Kamlesh Chandra Verma

2016-03-16

SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI

body2016
JUDGMENT Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. – Heard Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Prateek Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents (first set). 2. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief: "(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 15.02.2016 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 16, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Control Appeal No. 133 of 2011 and dismiss the release application. (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 not to dispossess the petitioners from the accommodation in question in pursuance to the impugned judgment and order dated 15.02.2016." 3. Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant/tenant submits that the petitioner was the tenant in the premises in question as per findings recorded by the prescribed authority as against the allegation of unauthorised occupant set up by the plaintiff yet the appellate court allowed the appeal of the plaintiff landlord. He further submits that the judgment of the appellate court is not based on appreciation of the findings recorded by the prescribed authority, and therefore, it deserves to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents supports the order of the appellate court. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 6. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the plaintiffs respondents purchased a house bearing Municipal No. 11/238, Sutarganj, Kanpur by registered sale deed dated 27th March, 2003. In a portion of the said house, one Sri Dilip Chandra Mittal was originally the tenant who died on 14th July, 1982. He had three sons namely Grish Chandra Mittal, Vinod Chandra Mittal @ Vinosh Chandra Mittal and Sri Ram Kumar Mittal. After the death of Sri Dilip Chandra Mittal, his sons succeeded in tenancy. An application dated 02.08.2005 under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 being Rent Case No. 21 of 2006 was filed by the plaintiff respondent against the aforesaid Ram Kumar Gupta and Sri Vinod Chandra Mittal (tenants), which was dismissed by the Prescribed Authority by order dated 04.11.2010. An application dated 02.08.2005 under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 being Rent Case No. 21 of 2006 was filed by the plaintiff respondent against the aforesaid Ram Kumar Gupta and Sri Vinod Chandra Mittal (tenants), which was dismissed by the Prescribed Authority by order dated 04.11.2010. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the Prescribed Authority, the plaintiff respondent filed a Rent Appeal No. 133 of 2011, which has been allowed by the court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 16, Kanpur Nagar by the impugned judgment dated 15th February, 2016. Aggrieved with the judgment dated 15th February, 2016, the petitioner-defendant No. 2 has filed the present writ petition. 7. During the pendency of the appeal, the defendant No. 2 died and was succeeded by his two daughters who are the petitioners in the present writ petition. 8. In paragraph-19 of the impugned appellate order, a fact has been noted that during pendency of the case, the brother of the defendant No. 2 acquired a house No. 583B, Safipur, Kanpur Nagar in the name of his wife and his another brother Sri Girish Chandra Mittal got allotted a portion of house No. 11/218, Sutarganj, Kanpur. As per clause (g) of Section 3 of the Act, the aforesaid sons became tenant in the tenanted portion of the house in question on the death of their father on 14th July, 1982, who was the original tenant and with whom they were residing. 9. The plaintiff landlord, before purchasing the house in question; was residing in a tenanted house No. 10/419A, Khalasi Line, Kanpur, which was got vacated from him by his landlord. He purchased the house in question and started residing in which he has total accommodation of two rooms on the first floor with four feet wide passage and a shed on the second floor. His family consists of him, his wife and a married son, and his two married daughters who frequently used to stay for looking after their old ailing parents who are said to be suffering from several diseases. 10. His family consists of him, his wife and a married son, and his two married daughters who frequently used to stay for looking after their old ailing parents who are said to be suffering from several diseases. 10. On these facts and on the touchstone of the provisions of Section 21(1)(a) of the Act read with Rule 16 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972, the appellate court recorded a finding of fact with regard to bona fide need of the plaintiff respondent for the tenanted portion in question after considering the relevant evidences and facts as well as the comparative hardship. Therefore, it cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That apart, I do not find any error of law in the impugned appellate judgment. The writ petition is wholly devoid of merit and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 11. After the judgment was dictated in open court, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that the petitioners want to give an undertaking to vacate the tenanted portion of the house in question within three months from today and, therefore for a period of three months, they may be allowed to stay in the tenanted portion. 12. Looking into the prayer so made, liberty is being granted to the petitioner to give such an undertaking before the prescribed authority along with proof of deposit of damages for three months at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per month within three weeks from today. If such an undertaking along with proof of deposit as aforesaid, is given by the petitioners within the stipulated time before the prescribed authority, then the petitioners shall be allowed to remain in the tenanted portion only till 15th June, 2016. If any of the conditions of this judgment is not complied with by the petitioners, the protection as provided above shall not be available to them. 13. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.