Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHYAM SUNDER AND OTHERS versus RAJENDRA PRASAD AND ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shyam Sunder And Others v. Rajendra Prasad And Another - WRIT - A No. 47477 of 2003 [2003] RD-AH 390 (21 October 2003)

 

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.5

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47477 of 2003

         Shyam Sunder and others  Vs. Rajendra Prasad and another

Hon. S.P. Mehrotra, J.

The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 /227 of the Constitution of India, interalia, praying for quashing the order dated 2.9.2003 ( Annexure no. 3 to the writ petition ) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court no. 9 , Agra (Appellate Authority ) and the judgment and order dated 18.5.1998  (Annexure no. 2 to the writ petition ) passed by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court , Agra ( Prescribed Authority ).

The dispute relates to an accommodation on the ground  floor of House no. 9/184, Hanuman Chauraha, Moti Katra, Agra, the details whereof are given in the release application referred to hereinafter. The said accommodation has hereinafter been referred to as the " disputed accommodation".

From the allegations made in the Writ Petition as well as Annexures thereto, it appears that the respondents filed a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972  (in short the "Act") for release of the disputed accommodation against Smt. Chameli Devi (  mother of the petitioner nos.1 and  4 herein ), Shiv Swaroop ( petitioner no.4 herein ) , Radhey Shyam (predecessor -in -interest of the petitioners no. 2 and 3 herein ) , Shyam Sunder ( petitioner no.1 herein)  and Gyan Swaroop.

It was, interalia, alleged in the said release application that the respondents needed the disputed accommodation for their use and occupation; and that the respondents  had no other house except the disputed accommodation to live in with their families, and the need of the respondents for the disputed accommodation was bonafide and genuine ; and that the comparative hardship of the respondents was greater than  that of the said Smt. Chameli Devi and others  (opposite parties in the said release application ).

It appears that the said release application was registered as P.A.case no. 30 of 1986.

Copy of the said release application has been filed as Annexure no. 1 to the Writ Petition.

The said release application was contested by the said Smt. Chameli Devi and others ( opposite parties in the said release application)

It further appears that during the pendency of the said release application, the said Smt. Chameli Devi died . Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the heirs and legal representatives of the said Smt. Chameli Devi were already on record of the said P.A. case no. 30 of 1986. Further, during the pendency of the said release application, the said Radhey Shyam also died, and Meena Devi , widow of the said Radhey Shyam ( petitioner no. 2 herein ) and Manoj Kumar , son of the said Radhey Shyam ( petitioner no. 3 herein ) were brought on record as the heirs and legal representatives of the said Radhey Shyam . Further, during the pendency of the said release application, the said Gyan Swaroop also died. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that after the death of the said Gyan Swaroop , heirs and legal representatives of the said Gyan Swaroop were not brought on record of the said P.A. case no. 30 of 1986.

Both  the sides filed affidavits and documentary evidence in support of their respective cases  before the Prescribed Authority .

By the judgment and order dated 18.5.1998, the Prescribed Authority allowed the said release application filed by the respondents.

Thereupon, it appears that the petitioners herein filed an Appeal under Section 22 of the Act which was registered as R.C.M.A.no. 268 of 1998.

By the judgment and order dated 2.9.3003( Annexure no. 3 to the Writ Petition ) , the Appellate Authority dismissed the said R.C.M.A. no. 268 of 1998.

Thereafter, the petitioners filed the present writ petition seeking reliefs mentioned above.

I have heard Sri Ashish Kumar Singh  , learned counsel for the petitioners at length. Sri Singh has tried to assail the findings recorded by the courts below on the questions of bonafide need and comparative hardships .

The Prescribed Authority as well as  the Appellate Authority have recorded findings on the questions of bonafide need and comparative hardships after detailed consideration of  materials on record and  after taking into consideration the relevant factors.

It is well settled that  the findings on the questions of bonafide need and comparative hardships are  findings of fact. This Court in its Writ Jurisdiction/ Supervisory Jurisdiction  under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India normally does  not interfere with the findings of fact unless such findings are shown to be patently illegal or  perverse. No illegality or perversity has been shown in the findings recorded by the Authorities below on the  questions of bonafide need and comparative hardships. In the circumstances, no interference is called for with the said findings of fact on the questions of bonafide need and comparative hardships recorded by the Authorities below.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the Writ Petition lacks merit, and the same is liable to be dismissed. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners then submits that reasonable time be granted to the petitioners for vacating the disputed accommodation.

I have heard Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners on the said question also.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the  learned counsel for the petitioners, it is directed that the petitioners will not be evicted from the disputed accommodation till 30.4.2004 provided the petitioners give undertaking on their joint personal affidavit within six weeks from today incorporating the following conditions:

(1) The petitioners will vacate the disputed accommodation on or before 30.4.2004 and handover its peaceful vacant possession to the respondents.

(2) The petitioners will continue to pay the rent/damages in respect of the disputed accommodation till the date of vacating the disputed accommodation.

     In case the requisite undertaking is not given within the aforesaid period or any of the conditions incorporated in the undertaking is violated, this order granting time to the petitioners for vacating the disputed accommodation will stand automatically vacated, and it will become open to the respondents to execute the release order forthwith.

Dt. 21.10.2003/aks


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.