Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Jai Narain v. 2nd A.D.J. & Others - WRIT - A No. 14687 of 1989 [2005] RD-AH 7078 (7 December 2005)


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).


(Court No. 51)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14687 of 1989

Jai Narain Vs. II Additional District Judge, Meerut and others.

Hon'ble S.U.Khan J

List revised no one appears for the respondent.

Heard Sri N.C. Rajvanshi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.

Petitioner is sitting tenant. Respondent No. 4 Smt Shahjahan Begum (since deceased and survived by legal representatives) was the landlady of the shop in dispute. Respondent No.3 who according to learned counsel for the petitioner was close relative of respondent no.4, filed allotment application. On the said application, shop in dispute was got inspected by the R.C.I . R.C.I submitted the report on 6.2.1985. The main thrust of the report was that the tenant was doing business in another shop and keeping the shop in dispute locked. R.C & E.O / City Magistrate (I), Meerut before whom the case was registered as case No. 31, Rais Ahmad Vs. Shahjahan Begum declared the shop in dispute as vacant through order dated 7.4.1988. The only finding on the basis of which shop in dispute was declared vacant is that petitioner did not file Sales Tax Return as earlier promised by him and he failed to prove that he was doing some business from the shop in dispute. It was also found by R.C & E.O that petitioner was Thekedar, plying taxies and was also  director of a finance company. The conclusion of R.C & E.O is that petitioner did not require the shop in dispute and was retaining the same only for the purposes of Pagri.  The question of need/ requirement of the tenant for the shop in dispute is wholly foreign for the purposes of deciding vacancy. Even engagement in another businesses however more in number they may be does not give rise to vacancy of commercial accommodation. Against order dated 7.4.1988, petitioner filed revision being Civil Revision No. 118 of 1988. Revision was also dismissed by II Additional District Judge, Meerut through judgment and order dated 12.7.1989, hence this writ petition.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the report of R.C I is dated 6.2.1985, however there was another litigation in between the petitioner and his landlord of the shop which is adjoining to the shop in dispute. In that litigation, under section 21 of U.P Act No.13 of 1972, prescribed authority himself inspected the premises in dispute in the said case and the premises in dispute in the instant writ petition. Copy of the said report dated 3.8.1985 i.e. after about six months from the report of R.C.I  is annexure 1 to this writ petition. In the said report, it is mentioned that in the shop in dispute which is adjoining to the shop in dispute in the said release application petitioner was actually carrying on the work of steel furniture. Availability of the shop in dispute to the petitioner was also a ground for allowing the release application of the adjoining shop. The said matter in between the petitioner and his other landlord came up to the High Court in the form of writ petition No. 6960 of 1987, which was dismissed on 9.4.1987. Copy of the said judgment is annexure 2 to the writ petition. In the said judgment also it was observed that tenant had another shop in his tenancy occupation i.e shop No.215. The said shop is in dispute in the instant writ petition.

In view of the above I am clearly of the opinion that there was no vacancy and impugned orders are bad in law.

Accordingly writ petition is allowed. Both the impugned judgments/ orders are set-aside.

I have held in Khursheeda Vs. A.D J 2004(2) ARC 64 that while granting relief against eviction to the tenant in respect of building covered by Rent Control Act, writ court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent.

Property in dispute is a shop situate in an important market of Meerut. Rent of Rs. 250/- per month is highly inadequate.

Accordingly it is directed that with effect from January 2006 onwards tenant petitioner shall pay rent to the legal representatives of landlady respondent No.4 i.e Smt Shahjahan Begum at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month.




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


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.