High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Mansoor Ahmad v. The Prescribed Authy. /Civil Judge(Sr. Div.) And Others. - WRIT - A No. 61380 of 2006  RD-AH 18968 (9 November 2006)
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J
Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
Sri Raziuddin, respondent no. 3- the landlord moved application, registered as Rent Case no. 82 of 2000 under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Rent, Letting and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act') for release of his shop from the possession of petitioner-tenant on the ground of his own need.
The case was contested by the petitioner-tenant denying the plaint allegations, inter alia, that the landlord does not require the premises, in dispute and the release application was, in fact, moved with a view to oust the tenant, who will suffer greater hardship than the landlord if the shop, in dispute, is released in favour of the landlord, who is running a Purchoon shop from the premises, in dispute.
The release application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority by judgment and decree dated 31.3.2004.
Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Rent Appeal No. 37 of 2004, which has also been dismissed by the appellate Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 28.8.2006.
Aggrieved by the judgment and orders passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has come up before this court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
A perusal of the impugned judgment and orders passed by the Courts below, it is evident that concurrent findings of facts have been recorded in favour of the landlord in view of the fact that the petitioner-tenant has got an alternate accommodation in the name of his wife, which was purchased in 1986 in the same city and that the accommodation, in dispute, was geven on rent for residential purpose and not for commercial purpose but the tenant was using the same as commercial purpose. Admittedly, the petitioner has his own alternate premises acquired in vacant state in the name of his wife as far back as in 1986 in the same city/notified area. He can, therefore, conveniently shift his business there.
Counsel for the petitioner could not show any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the orders impugned, as such, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below.
The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner-tenant will vacate the accommodation, in dispute, within a month from today and pay the arrears of rent, if any, within the same period to the landlord failing which, he shall be evicted by coercive process, in accordance with law, with the aid of local police and the arrears of rent shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. No order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.