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


Hari Har Dass Alias Hari Ram v. The Second Addl. D.J. & Others - WRIT - A No. 13409 of 1988 [2005] RD-AH 7493 (14 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. 13409 of 1988

Hari Har Dass alias Hari Ram  Vs.  The IInd A.D.J., Shahjahanpur and others


This is landlord's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings initiated by him against original tenant-respondent no.3 since deceased and survived by legal representatives in the form of P.A. case no.38 of 1980 on the file of Prescribed authority/Munsif, Shahjahanpur, Court No.1 under Section 21 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972.  In the release application it was stated that one of the sons of landlord Anil Kumar had passed diploma from Polytechnic and was un-employed hence shop in dispute was needed for him to run kharad business.  However, copy of the diploma was not filed. The said fact was stated only on affidavit.  Prescribed authority did not believe the version of the landlord and held that his need was not bonafide.  Question of comparative hardship was also decided in favour of the tenant.  Ultimately release application was rejected on 13.8.1984.  Against the said judgment and order landlord-petitioner filed Misc. Civil Appeal No.142 of 1984.  Appellate court/IInd A.D.J., Shahjahanpur fully agreed with the trial court and dismissed the appeal through judgment and order dated 1.4.1988 hence this writ petition.

I do not find any error in the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below.  In case petitioner's son had obtained diploma then this fact should have been proved by filing copy of the said diploma.  Averment of the petitioner in affidavit was not sufficient to prove the said fact.

Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition hence it is dismissed.

I have held in Khursheeda Vs. A.D.J. 2004(2) A.R.C. 64 and H.M.Kitchlu Vs. A.D.J. 2004 (2) A.R.C. 652 that while granting relief against eviction to the tenant in respect of building covered by Rent Control Act or maintaining the said relief already granted by courts below, writ court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent.  Property in dispute is a shop situate near Surraffa Bazar in Shahjahanpur and tenant was carrying on the business of jewelry from the said shop.  Rent of Rs.10/- or 12/- per month is virtually as well actually no rent.  

Accordingly, it is directed that with effect from January-2006 onward tenants-respondents shall pay rent to landlord-petitioner at the rate of Rs.500/- per month.

As no one has appeared on behalf of substituted respondents hence petitioner shall send a certified copy of this order to one of the respondent nos. 3/1 to 3/7.




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.