Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KAILASH CHAND versus D.J.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kailash Chand v. D.J. - WRIT - A No. 23068 of 1993 [2006] RD-AH 4175 (22 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

(Court No.51)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.23068 of 1993

Kailash Chand Vs.  XIIIth A.D.J., Meerut and others

Hon.S.U.Khan,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by landlord-respondent no.3 - Chatar Singh on the ground of bonafide need under section 21 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 in the form of P.A. Case no.186 of 1988.  Prescribed authority/Civil judge, Meerut through judgment and order dated 16.12.1991 allowed the release application.  Against the said judgment and order tenant filed Misc. Appeal No.456 of 1991.  XIIIth A.D.J., Meerut  through judgment and order dated 17.5.1993 dismissed the appeal hence this writ petition.

Both the courts below found that at the time of filing release application the family of the landlord consisted of himself, his wife, two married sons out of whom one was having two children also, one more son soon to be married and two daughters out of whom one was married.  There was some dispute regarding availability of accommodation to the landlord.  According to the tenant some more rooms were available to the landlord than disclosed by him.  Both the courts below found that only that much accommodation was available to the landlord which was disclosed by him.

It was admitted by the tenant that his sons were not residing in Meerut where house in dispute is situate.  There was serious dispute in between the parties regarding residence of the tenant.  Landlord asserted that tenant was residing at Delhi while tenant asserted that he was residing at Meerut.  Courts below found the version of the landlord to be correct.  Tenant in order to show his permanent residence at Meerut filed copy of ration card.  Courts below held that by mere filing of copy of ration card permanent residence could not be proved.  It was also stated by the landlord that tenant was doing business in a shop alongwith his brother at Bulandshahar.  The tenant stated that he occasionally sat at the said shop.  However, admission to this extent made his permanent residence at Meerut doubtful.

In my opinion there is no such fault in the concurrent findings of the courts below which may warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.  Need for additional accommodation was quite bonafide for the landlord.  Need will remain bonafide even if it is assumed that landlord has as much accommodation at his disposal as pointed out by the tenant.

In respect of comparative hardship firstly courts below found that tenant was not permanently residing in the house in dispute secondly tenant did not show that what efforts he made to search for alternative accommodation after filing of the release application.  This was sufficient to tilt the balance of comparative hardship against the tenant vide B.C. Bhutada Vs. G.R.Mundada A.I.R. 2003 (S.C.) 2713.

Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

Tenant-petitioner is granted six months time to vacate provided that:

(1) Within one month from today he files an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority to the effect that on or before the expiry of aforesaid period of six months he will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlord-respondent no.3.

(2) For this period of six months which has been granted to the tenant-petitioner to vacate he is required to pay Rs.3,000/- (at the rate of Rs.500/- per month) as damages for use and occupation.  This amount shall also be deposited within one month before the Prescribed Authority and shall immediately be paid to the landlord-respondent no.3.

In case of default in compliance of any of these conditions tenant-petitioner shall be evicted through process of Court after one month.

It is further directed that in case undertaking is not filed or Rs.3,000/- are not deposited within one month then tenant petitioner shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month since after one month till the date of actual vacation.

Similarly if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing Rs.3,000/- the accommodation in dispute is not vacated on the expiry of six months then damages for use and occupation shall be payable at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month since after six months till actual vacation.

22.2.2006

RS/-


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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