High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Sardar Gurbachan Singh v. Vith Adj And Others - WRIT - A No. 1387 of 1993  RD-AH 5442 (7 March 2006)
(Court No. 51)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1387 of 1993
Sardar Gurbachan Singh Versus VI Additional District Judge, Saharanpur and others.
Hon'ble S.U.Khan J
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction / release proceedings initiated by landlords respondents No. 3 and 4 against the tenant petitioner 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. 12 of 1989. Prescribed authority / Additional Civil Judge, Saharanpur through judgment and order dated 30.11.1990 allowed the release application. Against the said judgment and order tenant petitioner filed R.C Appeal No. 179 of 1990. VI Additional District Judge, Saharanpur through judgment and order dated 24.12.1992 dismissed the appeal, hence this writ petition.
It appears that there are six adjoining shops alongwith rooms on the first floor out of which four were purchased by the petitioner one by the landlord respondent No. 3 and the other by landlord respondent No. 4. Petitioner is tenant of first floor accommodations situate over both the shops purchased by the landlords respondents.
One of the argument of Learned counsel for the petitioner tenant is that one release application was not maintainable by two separate landlords. However property was in possession of one tenant and initially owner / landlord was also one hence one release application was quite maintainable.
Prescribed authority heard the matter and allowed the release application under section 21(1)(a) of the Act. However appellate court allowed the release application under both the clauses i.e. 21(1) (a) as well as (b). If need is established then building is released under section 21(1)(a) of the Act. In such situation, the landlord after release may use the accommodation either in its existing form or after demolition and reconstruction.
The other argument of learned counsel for the tenant petitioner is that property in dispute was a residential accommodation hence it could not be released for commercial purpose as has been done by the courts below. However courts below have found that tenant was using the accommodation in dispute as a storeroom hence it was not a residential accommodation.
One of the landlords had sought release for establishing godown and office for one of his sons. In this regard learned counsel for the tenant petitioner has argued that the son of the said landlord for whose office release was sought got another office. However it was not pointed out as to whether the office in which the son of one of the landlords was doing business was owned by him or had been taken on rent or as a licencee. If for want of proper accommodation some stopgap arrangement is made to start business in a tenanted accommodation, it does not mitigate against the bonafide need. However if it had been shown that landlord or his son had purchased another accommodation and had started business there from then the need for the son could not be said to be bonafide any more. In any case need for godown for the said landlord still exists.
It is also important to note that four adjoining shops are already owned by the tenant and tenant could very well shift his storeroom in any of those adjoining shops. All the shops purchased by the tenant contain rooms on the first floor also.
Accordingly I do not find any error in the findings recorded by the courts below in favour of the landlords.
Writ petition is therefore 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 period of six months he will willingly vacate and handover possession of the property in dispute to the landlords-respondents.
(2) For this period of six months, which has been granted to the petitioner to vacate he is required to pay Rs.3000/- (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 landlords-respondents.
It is further directed that in case undertaking is not filed or amount of Rs. 3000/- is not deposited within one month then tenant petitioner shall be liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month since after one month till the date of actual vacation.
Similarly if after filing the aforesaid undertaking and depositing Rs. 3000/- the property in dispute is not vacated on or before six months then damages for use and occupation shall be payable at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month since after six months till actual vacation.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.