High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Nazir Hussain v. Mushtaq Ahmad - WRIT - A No. 25972 of 2007  RD-AH 10368 (4 June 2007)
Court No. 45
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25972 of 2007
Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.
It is tenant petition. Respondents landlord filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for releasing the premises in question on the ground of bonafide need as there are seventeen members in his family. In the said proceedings petitioner filed written statement to which rejoinder affidavit has been filed. Prescribed Authority thereafter on the basis of evidence so adduced allowed the release application of landlord on 05.08.2000. Against the said order Appeal in question has been preferred and said Appeal has also been rejected on 17.05.2007. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case Prescribed Authority as well as Appellate Authority both have totally misdirected themselves while considering the question of bonafide need and comparative hardship, as such orders in question are liable to be quashed and writ petition is liable to be allowed.
From the side of the respondents it has been contended that question of bonafide need and comparative hardship are essentially a question of fact as such no interference is required.
After respective arguments have been advanced factual position which is emerging in the present case is that need of the landlord has been found to be bonafide as there are seventeen members in the family and on account of paucity of accommodation, family members are residing outside on rent. Categorical finding of fact has been returned that family members are residing on rent and there is paucity of accommodation and need is bonafide then qua this categorical finding of fact no interference is required to be made. Even on the question of comparative hardship, both Prescribed Authority and Appellate Authority have undertaken much more exercise by considering each and every aspect of the matter and thereafter concluded that landlord would suffer much more loss in the event of release being refused and further conduct of tenant has also been noted, that no attempt has been made by him to search alternative accommodation. Question of bonafide need and comparative hardship being essentially question of fact. Here as Prescribed Authority and Appellate Authority both have appreciated and scrutinized the evidence available on record and thereafter has reached legal and justifiable conclusion then there is no infirmity in view taken. There is no merit in the writ petition.
Consequently writ petition is dismissed. However, in the event in case petitioner files an affidavit before Prescribed Authority within one month from today giving therein undertaking he would vacate the premises in question within six months then for the said period of six months petitioner shall not be evicted from the premises in question. However by way of damages a sum of Rs. 500/- per month be paid to the landlord for the said period and thereafter immediately after six months peaceful possession should be handed over to the landlord. In the event of non-filing of affidavit and non payment of damages interim protection accorded shall stand vacated, and execution proceedings would be carried out to its logical conclusion.
No orders as to cost.
Dated 04th June, 2007
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.