Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Satish Chandra Agarwal v. A.D.J. And Ors. - WRIT - A No. 8498 of 1988 [2006] RD-AH 3595 (15 February 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


(Court No. 51)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.8498 of 1988

Satish Chandra Agarwal Versus Vth Additional District Judge, Saharanpur and others.

Hon'ble S.U.Khan J

This is landlord's writ petition arising out eviction/ release proceedings initiated by him against tenant respondent No.4 (During pendency of writ petition both the original landlord petitioner S.C.Agarwal and original tenant respondent No.4 Sri Shyam Lal have died and have been substituted by their legal representatives).

Property in dispute is a big shop having dimensions of 29 feet into 24 feet. Rent of the shop is Rs. 59/- per month.

Release application was filed on the ground of bonafide need under section 21 of U.P Act No. 13 of 1972 and was registered as R.C case No. 53 of 1975 on the file of prescribed authority/ Additional Munsif, Saharanpur. It was stated in the release application that landlord was carrying on business and he required the shop in dispute for storing his merchandise i.e. for using as godown. Release application was decided by the prescribed authority and appellate court Thereafter matter came to this court and it was remanded to the lower appellate court. After remand lower appellate court/ V Additional District Judge, Saharanpur through judgment and order dated 15.2.1988 again dismissed the appeal of the landlord (R.C Appeal NO. 5 of 1978), hence this writ petition.

If release application has been rejected by both the courts below and the High Court is ultimately of the opinion that the impugned judgments are erroneous in law, in normal course matter is remanded. However in exceptional circumstances High Court may itself grant final relief. Unfortunately in the instant case landlord has also died during pendency of the writ petition. Even though it has strenuously been argued by learned counsel for the landlord petitioner that son and daughter in law of the landlord who have been substituted at his place are also doing the same business hence their need is exactly same as the need of the original landlord, however under the facts and circumstances of the case I feel that the only course left for the court is to dismiss the writ petition on the ground that landlord has died without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. Under some what similar circumstances Supreme Court in K.N.Agarwal Versus Dhanraji Devi 2004(2) ARC 764 has held that after the death of the landlord for whose need release order was passed fresh need of landlord's successors may be considered provided that it is brought on record in terms of section 21(7) of U.P Act No.13 of 1972.

Accordingly writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the substituted petitioners/ present landlords to initiate fresh release application in case they require the shop in dispute . If fresh release application is filed it shall be decided on the basis of evidence brought on record without taking into consideration the findings recorded by the courts below in the judgments impugned in the instant writ petition. In the fresh release application, if filed, both the parties will be at liberty to press such points as may be available to them.

I have held in Khursheeda Vs. A.D.J 2004(2) ARC 64 and H.M.Kichlu Vs. A.D.J 2004(2) ARC 652 that while granting relief against eviction to the tenant in respect of building covered by Rent Control Act or while maintaining the said relief already granted by the courts below, writ court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent.

Property in dispute is a shop situate in Saharanpur. Rent of Rs.59/- per month for a shop admeasuring about 700 square feet (696 square feet exactly) is virtually as well as actually no rent.

Accordingly, it is directed that with effect from March 2006 onwards, tenant respondent shall pay rent to the landlords petitioners at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month inclusive of all taxes. No further amount shall be payable by the tenant.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.