RAM NARAYAN SONI versus RAM PRASAD AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Ram Narayan Soni v. Ram Prasad And Others - WRIT - A No. 29063 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 10112 (23 May 2006)

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. 28

CIVIL MISC.WRIT PETITON NO.  29063 OF  2006

Ram Narayan Soni

vs

Ram Prasad and others.

Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.

Heard Sri  R.K. Pandey, learned  counsel for the petitioner.

An application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act  No. XIII of 1972 for the ejectment of the petitioner and release of shop in dispute was filed  on the ground of establishing his son in business.

It was pleaded in release application by the landlord that the tenant/ petitioner  has three shops of his own and his uncle Shiv Narayan also has three shops. Besides,  he is having a tenanted  shop in the  locality of Manoharganj where he can shift his business. These assertions made in paragraph no. 12 of the application were not categorically denied in the written statement. It was only mentioned in paragraph no. 10 of the writ petition  that averments made in paragraph no. 12 and 13 of the application are wrong and incorrect. The Prescribed Authority on the basis of  evidence  brought on record recorded a finding of fact that the need of respondent/landlord was bonafide and the tenant/petitioner already has other shops of his own where he can shift his business.  With regard to  comparative hardship the  Prescribed Authority held that the tenant/petitioner has not made any efforts to obtain any other suitable accommodation and thus the hardship of the landlord/ respondent was comparatively  more.

It is well settled that finding of fact  recorded by two courts below on the basis of proper appraisal of evidence  brought on record are not to be interfered by this court while exercising the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

A perusal of the judgment of  Prescribed Authority as well as appellate court goes to show that finding recorded   by the courts below are based on proper appraisal of evidence brought on record. Even during the  course of argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point  out  non-consideration of any material evidence or even misreading of any evidence to warrant interference by this court.

The writ petition being concluded by the finding of facts recorded by two courts below fails and is hereby dismissed summarily.

However considering the facts and circumstances the tenant / petitioner is allowed one year  time to vacate the premises in dispute subject to the condition that he   files an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority within three weeks from today to vacate and  handover the possession of the shop in dispute to the respondent/landlord on or before the expiry of one year from today.  In case of default in compliance of the aforesaid condition the petitioner shall be liable to be evicted after one month through  process of court. Subject to the aforesaid the writ petition stands dismissed.

23.5.2006.g.

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 |

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