High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Chand Navi v. Shri Allaha Mehar - WRIT - A No. - 43406 of 2007  RD-AH 15299 (11 September 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.43406 of 2007
Chand Navi Vs. Shri Allaha Mehar
Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the landlord-respondent, who has appeared through caveat, is also present.
This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/ release proceedings initiated by landlord respondent on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, in the form of U.P.U.B. Case No.39 of 2001. Prescribed Authority/ Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division Court No.1, Aligarh allowed the release application on 31.01.2003. Against the said judgment and order, tenant petitioner filed U.P.U.B. Appeal No.2 of 2003. A.D.J. Court No.9, Aligarh dismissed the appeal on 10.08.2007, hence this writ petition.
Property in dispute is a shop rent of which is Rs.90/- per month. Landlord stated that he had four sons and he required the shop in dispute for one of the sons, Jalluddin who was aged about 45 years and was not doing any business or job. It was also stated that the tenant had taken another shop on rent. However, tenant's version about the other shop was that he had taken that shop for his son. It was further stated that two of the sons of the landlord were doing business but third son Jalaluddin was not having any shop to do business. Both the courts below found that Jalaluddin had no shop to do business. It was stated that on behalf the tenant, that according to the landlord, Jalaluddin was not doing any business since 1987, hence need was not bona fide. The courts below held that version of the landlord that Jalaluddin first tried to obtain some service, thereafter he started doing free lance jobs as he was also technically educated in electricity work. Absolutely no fault can be found in this finding of courts below.
In respect of comparative hardship, courts below held that the tenant petitioner had two other shops and a Karkhana, hence balance of hardship was in favour of the landlord.
I do not find least error in the impugned findings. Tenant has not been able to show that Jalaluddin son of the landlord is doing any regular business. Tenant has got other shops also. Accordingly, finding of bona fide need and comparative hardship recorded by both the courts below in favour of the landlord are affirmed.
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
Tenant-petitioner is granted six months time to vacate provided that :-
1. Within one month from today tenant files an undertaking before the Trial Court 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.
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. 5,00/- per month) as rent/damages for use and occupation. This amount shall also be deposited within one month before the Trial Court and shall immediately be paid to the landlord-respondent.
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.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.