Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHYAM SUNDER versus SRI RAM NIWAS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shyam Sunder v. Sri Ram Niwas - WRIT - A No. 24249 of 1993 [2006] RD-AH 15507 (6 September 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.20

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.24249 of 1993

Shyam Sunder

   Vs.

Sri Ram Niwas  and others

Hon. Sanjay Misra, J.

Heard Sri V.M. Singh holding brief of Sri R.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears on behalf of the respondents.

The application of the petitioner landlord for the release of the tenanted accommodation was allowed by the Prescribed Authority.  The appellate court has set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority and dismissed the release application. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.3.1993 passed by the appellate court.

The ground upon which the application has been dismissed by the lower appellate court  is that the petitioner landlord had failed to disclose before the Prescribed Authority as also before the  appellate court that he had in his possession certain accommodation in house no.63 Dal Mandi, Sadar, Meerut Cantt. whereas he was seeking release of the tenanted portion of house no.251 Dal Mandi, Sadar, Meerut Cantt. The  appellate court found that the accommodation which was concealed by the petitioner consisted of two living rooms, bath room, latrine and one sehan on the first floor and two living rooms, verandah and a kitchen on the second floor  in house no. 63 Dal Mandi, Sadar, Meerut and he had two rooms in a portion of house no.251 Dalmandi, Meerut. The court below was of the view that since the petitioner was in occupation of six rooms and there were six members  in the family of the petitioner, therefore, it was sufficient for the three married couples. It has further held that since the petitioner had not disclosed the accommodation in his occupation it amounted to concealment of fact relating to the  accommodation and therefore his need could not be held to be bonafide. For the aforesaid

-2-

reasons  the appeal of the respondent tenant  has been allowed and the application of the petitioner for release has been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any pleading or document to indicate that the aforesaid finding recorded by the lower appellate court is in any way erroneous or illegal.

For the aforesaid reasons this writ petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has lastly contended that the tenanted accommodation consisted of two rooms and three kotharies in house no. 251 Dal Mandi, Meerut at a monthly rent of Rs.100/-. It is contended that the said accommodation is situate in the heart of a  busy locality and the said rent is being paid since more than 21 years. He contended that the  rent of Rs.100/- per month of  the accommodation is too meagre. Relying upon the decision of this court in the case of Smt.Khursida Vs. Addl.District Judge, 2004(2) ARC 64 he has contended that the writ court for doing substantial justice between the parties can enhance the rent while granting relief to the tenant against his ejectment. He has contended that in the city of Meerut where the house in question is situate the rents are anormous and it is  not possible to get   accommodation at such a meagre rent. He, therefore, submits that rent may be enhanced. Considering the submission of  learned counsel for the petitioner this court finds that  the rent of the accommodation in question should be enhanced. It is accordingly enhanced to Rs.500/- per months with effect from 1.10.2006 and the tenant shall  pay the same month to month as and  when it falls  due. No order is passed as to costs.

6.9.06

Gc.


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.