High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Baboo v. 4th A.D.J. And Others - WRIT - A No. 15340 of 1985  RD-AH 8025 (22 December 2005)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15340 of 1985
Ram Babu Versus IV Additional District Judge Jhansi and others.
Hon'ble S.U.Khan J
This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction/ release proceedings initiated by landlord respondent No.2 Kishan Lal on the ground of bonafide need under section 21 of U.P Act No.13 of 1972 in the form of P.A case No. 14 of 1982.
Landlord pleaded that a partition had taken place in the year 1965 in his family and the ancestral residential house had gone in the share of his father and his brother and the house in dispute and other adjoining houses fell in the share of the landlord. Landlord further pleaded that all the houses, which came in his share, were in the occupation of the tenants. Tenant pleaded that some of those houses had been let out by the landlord recently hence his need was not bonafide. It was further pleaded on his behalf that ancestral house of the landlord was quite big rather palatial and in the said house he was residing quite comfortably and partition of 1965 was sham and entered into only to avoid tax. The prescribed authority held that landlord did not have any bonafide need and tenant would suffer greater hardship in case of eviction as his financial position was not such that he could pay more rent than the rent of the house in dispute i.e. Rs. 65/- per month and that for Rs.65/- per month such house was no more available in Jhansi. Prescribed authority through judgment and order dated 12.11.1982 dismissed the release application. Against the said judgment and order landlord filed R.C Appeal No. 66 of 1983.
The appellate court held that as partition was entered into about 17 years before filing of the release application hence it could not be said that it was affected for creating the ground to evict the tenant. In respect of the tenants of the other houses belonging to the landlord appellate court held that Sri R.P.Lavania and Sri Nimesh who were the tenants were Judicial Officers and they had been allotted those houses by R.C & E.O hence it could not be said that as landlord himself let out those houses, his need stood disproved.
The tenant also pointed out before the appellate Authority that during pendency of appeal father of the landlord had died; hence his share in the ancestral house had devolved upon the landlord also.
Appellate Court / IVth A.D.J.Jhansi allowed the appeal through judgment and order dated 17.8.1985, set aside the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority and allowed the release application of the landlord hence this writ petition by the tenant.
An application dated 6.1.2004 has been filed by the petitioner supported by supplementary affidavit of his son. Through the said supplementary affidavit it has been stated that the other houses which came in the share of the landlord in partition have been sold by the landlord to Rajendra Kumar Agarwal for Rs.3 lacs through registered sale deed dated 15.1.2001. Copy of the registered sale deed has also been annexed along with the supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel for the landlord-respondent on 18.10.2005 when arguments were heard and judgment was reserved stated that his client was not responding for filing reply to the said application. He further stated that he would argue the writ petition on the basis of writ petition, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit. This fact was noted in the order of 18.10.2005 passed on the application of the petitioner dated 6.1.2004 (No. 1860 of 2004).
In view of the fact that during pendency of the writ petition landlord has sold other house belonging to him it becomes quite clear that his need was not bonafide at least on the date when he sold the property. In view of this subsequent development writ petition has to be allowed.
Accordingly writ petition is allowed. Judgment and order passed by the Appellate Court is set-aside on the ground of aforesaid subsequent event. Judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority is restored.
I have held in Khursheeda vs. A.D.J. (2004(2) A.R.C. 64) that while granting relief to the tenant against eviction in respect of building covered by Rent Control Act writ court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent. Existing rent of Rs. 65/- per month for a two room house in Jhansi (containing veranda and other amenities also) is extremely inadequate. Accordingly it is directed that with effect from January 2006 onward the tenant petitioner shall pay to the landlord-respondent rent at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.