High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Narayan Soni v. Ram Prasad And Others - WRIT - A No. 29063 of 2006  RD-AH 10112 (23 May 2006)
Court No. 28
CIVIL MISC.WRIT PETITON NO. 29063 OF 2006
Ram Narayan Soni
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.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.