Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

LALA DAYAL RAM versus ADJ VII ADJ, MUZAFFARNAGAR & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Lala Dayal Ram v. Adj Vii Adj, Muzaffarnagar & Others - WRIT - A No. 45060 of 2000 [2005] RD-AH 7325 (12 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

(Reserved)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45060 of 2000

Lala Daya Ram Versus VII Additional District  Judge, Muzaffar Nagar and others.

Hon'ble S.U.Khan J

This is landlord's writ petition arising out of eviction/ release proceedings initiated by him against tenant respondent   No. 3 Israr Elahi on the ground of bonafide need under section 21 of U.P Act No.13 of 1972 in the form of R.C Case No. 7 of 1995 on the file of Prescribed authority/ Civil Judge (S.D), Kerana Muzaffar Nagar. Prescribed authority through judgment and order dated 4.5.1996, dismissed the release application. Against the said judgment and order landlord petitioner filed Rent Control Appeal No. 26 of 1996. VII Additional District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar through judgment and order dated 25.8.2000, dismissed the appeal hence this writ petition.

Property in dispute is a shop rent of which is Rs. 350/- per month.

In the release application, it was stated that in the open space behind the shop in dispute, landlord petitioner intended to construct his house and at the place of shop in dispute, he would construct stair case, gallery and septic tank; and that there was no stair case for going to the roof of the shop in dispute and the adjoining shops, which also belonged to the petitioner. Alternative shop was also offered by the landlord.

During argument of this writ petition, another shop was offered by the landlord to the tenant as the shop which was offered by him before the courts below had been let out. However the tenant expressed his regret for not accepting the exchange offer as mentioned in the orders dated 5.9.2005 and 19.9.2005 (on the order sheet).

It is admitted to the parties that at present landlord is about 100 years of age. The courts below have held that it was not proved that landlord actually intended to construct the proposed house in such manner that shop in dispute was necessarily required to be converted into gallery and staircase. Courts below also observed that in the map of 1973, it was not shown that gallery etc. would be constructed at the place where shop in dispute is situate. Appellate court specifically held that wife of the landlord had died and at the time of hearing appeal, he was 96 years of age. He was residing with his sons and grandsons comfortably. Appellate court also held that in the map of 1973 gallery etc. was proposed at some other place than the place occupied by the shop in dispute.

I do not find any error in the findings of the courts below holding the need of the landlord not to be bonafide.

Accordingly writ petition is dismissed.

I have held in Khursheeda Vs. A.D.J 2004(2) ARC 64 and H.M.Kichlu Vs. A.D.J 2004(2) ARC 652 that while granting relief to the tenant against eviction in respect of building covered by Rent Control Act or maintaining the said relief already granted by the courts below, writ court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent.

Offer of alternative shop made by the landlord to the tenant has been rejected by the tenant on the ground that offered adjoining shop is on a small road (lane) where as the shop in dispute is on the main road. This clearly demonstrated that the shop in dispute must be having very good market/ rental value.

Accordingly, it is directed that with effect from January 2006 onwards tenant respondent No. 3 Israr Elahi shall pay rent to the landlord petitioner at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month inclusive of water tax etc. No further amount as water tax etc as required by section 7 of the Act shall be required to be paid by the tenant in addition to the amount of Rs. 2000/- per month.

Waqar

Dated: 12.12.2005


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.