Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Ramji v. A.D.J., Court No. 9 Varanasi - WRIT - A No. 51050 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 16078 (14 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).


Court No.7

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.51050 of 2006



Addl.District Judge, Varanasi   and others

Hon. Sanjay Misra, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

It is contended that the release application of the landlord has been allowed by the order dated 7.10.2003 passed by  the Prescribed Authority( respondent no.2) without recording any finding on the bonafide need of the landlord. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Prescribed Authority has only considered the comparative hardship and therefore, the order of the Prescribed Authority was not in accordance with law.  Learned counsel for the petitioner has further  contended that he did not have any alternative shop for his business and this issue has been totally ignored by the lower appellate court.

The courts below while recording  concurrent finding of fact  have held  that the petitioner tenant has his own house within 300 feet of the accommodation in dispute which consists of  shops wherein two sons of the petitioner were employed and that the said house was being used for commercial purpose also. There is sufficient space in the building  to continue his business. The appellate court while considering the bonafide need of the landlord  has recorded its finding   and has found that the landlord's son who is not studying any more is unemployed and he wanted his son to be established his business in the shop in dispute. Consequently,  the appeal has also been dismissed. I do not find any error in the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts below.


The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has lastly contended that he has been in occupation of the premises in question since 35 years and therefore, he may be given some more time for vacating the shop. The courts below have granted 45 days. In view of aforesaid submission, the petitioner may give an undertaking  before the court below within 15 days from todayto the effect that he shall hand over peaceful vacant possession of the shop in question to the respondent landlord on or before 30th November 2006. If such an  undertaking is filed the petitioner shall be entitled  to stay in occupation of the shop in question till 30th November 2006 upon depositing the entire decretal amount alongwith his undertaking as aforesaid. No order is passed as to costs.




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 |

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