Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. ASGHARI BEGUM versus SMT. SHAKOORAN BEGUM & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Asghari Begum v. Smt. Shakooran Begum & Others - WRIT - A No. - 20434 of 1986 [2007] RD-AH 15832 (20 September 2007)

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 AT ALLAHABAD

(Judgment reserved on 03.09.2007)

(Judgment delivered on 20.09.2007)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.20434 of 1986

Smt. Ashgari Begum Vs. Smt. Shakooran Begum and others

Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.

This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/ release proceedings initiated by landlord respondent against her on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 in the form of P.A. Case No.29 of 1984. The release application was allowed on 18.07.1985 by Prescribed Authority/ Munsif, Hawali, District Meerut. Against the said judgment and order, Misc. Appeal No.235 of 1985 was filed, which was dismissed on 17.10.1986 by VIIth A.D.J. Meerut. Property in dispute is a house having three rooms. The case taken up in the release application was that landlady herself was residing in the tenanted house @ Rs.25/- per month and landlord of the said house had served a notice upon her to vacate. The tenanted house in possession of the landlady contained only one room and at the time of filing of release application, her family had six members, i.e. herself, her husband and four children. In respect of comparative hardship, courts below held that the tenant was residing all alone and she had not shown that what efforts she made to search for alternative accommodation. I do not find any least error in the concurrent findings of bona fide need and comparative hardship recorded by both the courts below.

In the supplementary affidavit filed by tenant petitioner, it has also been stated that landlady has increased the rent from Rs.25/- to Rs.125/- per month, which she was paying to her landlord in respect of tenanted accommodation in which she is residing and she has renovated the same also.

Learned counsel for the tenant petitioner has argued that the litigation, which was started by the landlord of the landlady seeking her eviction has either ended in favour of the landlady respondent or at least till date no eviction order has been passed against her. Landlady is residing in one room accommodation as tenant. The Supreme Court in AIR 2000 SC 656 "G. Kaushalya Devi v. Ghanshyamdas" has held that a tenanted accommodation with the landlord cannot be taken into consideration while considering his or her need. Moreover, the original tenant has now died and has been substituted by her married daughter. She did not have any son. The rent of the house in dispute is negligible. The view taken by the courts below recording comparative hardship is perfectly in consonance with the authority of Supreme Court in AIR 2003 SC 2713 "Badrinarayan Chunilal Bhutada v. Govindram Ramgopal Mundada."

I do not find any error in the impugned orders. Writ petition is accordingly 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. Amount of Rs.3000/-, deposited under order dated 27.07.2007 shall be deemed to have been paid for the period of six months granted to the petitioner to vacate from the house. The said amount shall at once be permitted to be withdrawn by the landlord.

In case undertaking is not filed within one month then tenant-petitioner shall be evicted through process of Court after one month and shall also 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 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.

Date:20.09.2007

NLY


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.