Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. PRABHUDEVI SHUKLA versus X ADJ & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Prabhudevi Shukla v. X Adj & Others - WRIT - A No. 46237 of 1992 [2006] RD-AH 117 (2 January 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. 51)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46237 of 1992

Smt. Prabhu Devi Shukla Versus X Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others.

Hon'ble S.U.Khan J

Inspite of sufficient service under Chapter VIII Rule 12 of the High Court Rules as per office report dated 12.12.2005; no one has appeared on behalf of tenant respondent No.3 V.K.Gupta.

Heard Sri Satya Prakash learned counsel for the landlord petitioner.

Landlord petitioner filed release application against tenant respondent No.3 under section 21 of U.P Act No. 13 of 1972 seeking his eviction on the ground of bonafide need from the tenanted house in dispute. Release application was registered as Rent Case No. 149 of 1987. Property in dispute is situate on ground floor and consists of two rooms, one storeroom, kitchen, courtyard, bathroom and latrine. On the first floor having equal accommodation, landlord is residing. Prescribed authority/ IV Additional C.M.M, Kanpur Nagar held that in view of the accommodation already available to the landlord including the accommodation on the first floor of the disputed house, his need was not bonafide. Question of comparative hardship was also decided in favour of the tenant. Ultimately release application was dismissed by prescribed authority through judgment and order dated 25.9.1990. Against the said judgment and order, landlord petitioner filed Rent Appeal No. 215 of 1990. X Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar through judgment and order dated 9.9.1992, dismissed the appeal hence this writ petition.

I do not find any error in the concurrent findings of bonafide need and comparative hardship recorded by the courts below against the landlord petitioner and in favour of tenant respondent No.3.

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 against eviction to the tenant in respect of building covered by Rent Control Act or while maintaining the said relief already granted by the courts below, writ court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent.

Property in dispute is situate in Kanpur which is most expensive city of Uttar Pradesh. Accommodation in dispute consists of two rooms, storeroom and other amenities. Existing rent of Rs. 320/- per month is highly inadequate.

Accordingly it is directed that with effect from January 2006 onwards, tenant respondent No.3 shall pay rent to the landlord petitioner at the rate of Rs. 750/- per month.

As no one has appeared on behalf of respondent No.3 hence petitioner is directed to send certified copy of this judgment to respondent No.3 through registered post.

Waqar

2.1.2006


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.