Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MULLAH YADAV versus THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY/ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Mullah Yadav v. The Prescribed Authority/Additional District Judge & Ors. - WRIT - A No. 64092 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 20048 (27 November 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. 7

       Civil Misc. Writ No. 64092 of 2006

Mullan Yadav                versus             Additional District Judge, Court no.9,

                                                             Varanasi and others.

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 10.10.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.9, Varanasi dismissing Rent Appeal No. 195 of 2004 filed by the petitioner and affirming the judgment and order dated 8.9.2004 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Varanasi.

The petitioner is tenant of the shop situate at CK-37/31 Kotwalpura, Bans Phatak, Varanasi. It was allotted by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer/Additional District Magistrate (Supply), Varanasi to him on monthly rent of Rs.800/- vide order dated 12.8.2003. The petitioner is running a sweet shop in the aforesaid accommodation since 1993. After the death of landlord Sri Markande Pandey the rights of the landlord devolved upon respondent nos. 3 and 4, his sons. They filed a suit under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 before the Prescribed Authority/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Varanasi for release of the shop in question on the ground of bonafide need of shop for respondent no.4 who was unemployed. The application was registered as P.A. Case No. 7 of 2003.

The case of the respondents was that the shop in dispute was required for business of "Fast Food Corner" by respondent no.4.

The petitioner denied the allegations of the plaintiff-respondents and stated that the intention of the respondents for moving release application was to evict the petitioner and thereafter let out the shop in dispute to some other person on higher rent, after taking premium from him and that Case No. 8 of 1998 was filed by the respondent-landlords in the Court of Judge Small Causes Court, Varanasi was based on incorrect facts and forged documents. A specific objection was taken by the petitioner that his house is situated much away from the main road and there being no direct passage to his house it could not be used for business purpose, hence he can not shift his business there. It was also stated that the landlords had surplus accommodation in the shape of a hall in his residential house in which he could start his business of Fast Food, if he so desired.

The Prescribed Authority/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Varanasi vide order dated 8.9.2004 allowed the application of the landlords, respondent nos. 3 and 4 directing the petitioner to vacate the shop in question. Considering the bonafide need and comparative hardship of the parties the Court found that the shop in dispute under the possession of the petitioner is perfect for the business of Fast Food Corner for the respondent-landlords. It held that there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his house is situated in Gali much away from the main road and market in which business could not be done as the shop in dispute is also situate in Gali. Considering all the aspects of the matter the Prescribed Authority also held that the petitioner can shift his business easily in his house and will not suffer any financial loss. The Court further held that the need of the landlords was bonafide and they would suffer comparatively more hardship if the shop in dispute is not released in their favour as such it should be vacated by the petitioner for which two years rent as compensation shall be payable to him by the landlords. The operative portion of the order dated 8.9.2004 of the Prescribed Authority is as under:-

^^  foi{khx.k dks fookfnr nwdku ls [kkyh djk;s tkus ds ckn os vius edku tks Hkou la-lh-ds-40@21 ?kq?kajkuh xyh okjk.klh esa gS] ftlesa og f'kV gks tk;sxsa A bl izdkj foi{kh dks dksbZ vkfFkZd {kfr ugha gS A

     bl izdkj mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij esA bl fu"d"kZ ij igqWprk gwW fd izkFkhZx.k dh vko';drk foi{khx.kksa dh vis{kk dkQh lnHkkouk iw.kZ]tsufoax o izsflax gS] vkSj rqyukRed dfBukbZ Hkh izkFkhZx.k dh vis{kk foi{kh dh de gksxh D;ksafd foi{kh dk viuk futh edku lh-ds-40@21 ?kq?kjkuh xyh okjk.klh esa gS] ftlesa og viuh nwdku dks f'kV dj ldrk gS A bl izdkj foi{kh ua04 dksbZ {kfr Hkh ughaa gS A izkFkhzZx.k dk izkFkZuk Ik= 4x Lohdkj djus ;ksX; gSA

                  vkns'k

    izkFkhZx.k dk izkFkZuki= 4x vUrZxr /kkjk 21 ,DV la0 13 lu 1972 Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS A foi{khx.k dks vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd oks 45 fnukasa ds Hkhrj fookfnr nwdku dks ftldk fooj.k izkFkZuk Ik= 4x ds vUr esa fn;k x;k gS [kkyh djds mldk okLrfod dCtk o n[ky izkFkhzx.k dks nsosa A foi{kh }kjk ,slk u djus ij izkFkhZ x.k dk ;g vf/kdkj gksxk fd og mDr dk;Zokgh fof/k vuqlkj th-ls- U;k;ky; djk ysos A bl lEcU/k esa izkFkhZ foi{kh dks fookfnr nwdku dk nks lky dk fdjk;k crkSj {kfriwfrZ vnk djsxk A

    g0vLi"V

                           8-9-04

                        ¿ ,l-ds-f=ikBh�?

                 fu;r izf/kdkjh@izFke vij flfoy tt ¿lh-Mh-�?

                                    okjk.klh A^^""

                                       

   Aggrieved by the above order dated 8.9.2004 the petitioner preferred Rent Appeal No. 195 of 2004 before the Appellate Court which was also dismissed vide order dated 10.10.2006.

 The Appellate Court also considered the contention of the petitioner in appeal that there is no direct passage to his house as he has to go through the common passage from another person's house and that a hall was available to the respondent-landlords in the residential building which was used by their father who was a lawyer as his office, which is also being raised before this Court. The relevant extract of the order is as under:-

         "vihykFkhzZ foi{kh dh vksj ls iz'kkUr ?kks"k }kjk nkf[ky 'kiFk Ik= 19x esa dgk x;k gS fd og vihykFkhZ ds eqgYys dk jgus okyk gS ,oa mls 30 o"kksZ ls tkurk gS A mlds 'kiFk Ik= ds vuqlkj eqYyu ;kno dk edku mlds edku ds lkeus xfy;kjsa esa gS A bl edku esa tkus ds fy, eqYyu ;kno dks dbZ vU; O;fDr;ksa ds edku ds uhps fLFkr dkeu iSlst ls tkuk iMrk gS A eqYyu ;kno ds edku ds uhps ls loZ lk/kkj.k O;fDr;ksa dk jkLrk ugha gS vkSj u gh loZ lk/kkj.k O;fDr ogkW ls tk ldrk gsSA eqYyu ;kno ds edku esa feBkbZ o pkV dh nqdku dRrbZ ugha py ldrh gSa] D;ksafd og xyh nj xyh esa fLFkr gS xus'k jko ckny ckor lk{kh dk 'kiFk Ik= 20 x gSa A ;g lk{kh eksgYyk dksrokyiqjk ckWl QkVd okjk.klh dk f'ko efUnj dk iqqqwtkjh gSA 'kiFk Ik= esa ;g dgk x;k gS fd og tgkW iwtk djrk gS] ogh ikl esa eqYyu ;kno dh feBkbZ o pkV dh nqdku gSa A ftl Hkou esa eqYyu ;kno dh feBkbZ  o pkV dh nqdku gS] mlds Lokeh Lo0 vf/koDrk ekjd.Ms ik.Ms; Fks vkSj mUgksauas gh eqYyu ;kno dks iz'uxr nqdku fdjk;s ij fn;k Fkk A ekjdUMs; ik.Ms; dks nks iq= gS ftlesa ls ,d dh mez 58 o"kZ rFkk nwljh dh mez yxHkx 55 o"kZ gS tks vuwi dqekj ik.Ms; gS vkSj Bsdsnkjh dk dke djrk gS A iz'uxr nqdku ftl Hkou esa gS] ml Hkou esa ,d cMk cSBdk gS tks izkFkhZ x.k ds dCts esa gS vkSj ;g gkWy tgkW fLFkr gS ]mlds cxy esa Hkh ,d nqdku gSA mDr gky fdlh izdkj ds jkstxkj ds fy, mi;qDr ugha gS A^^

    From the record it is apparent that the petitioner-tenant has made a statement before the Court below that the hall inside the residential premises of the petitioner is not appropriate for doing business. After going through the record and evidence the Appellate Court came to the conclusion that it is an admitted fact that the landlords have no other accommodation to shift their business and that the contention of the tenant that there was no bonafide need of respondent no.4 for shifting himself in the business of ''Fast Food' as he was working as Contractor was vague and unjustified. The Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to establish that Sri Anoop Kumar Pandey, respondent no.4 in the present writ petition was working as contractor and that even if it is presumed that respondent no.4 was working as contractor, the said work can not be said to be a regular work and until and unless it is established by record and evidence what type of work is being done by him and that he is earning regular income by such business. The findings are as under:-

            "^^ Ik=koyh ls Li"V gks jgk gS fd iz'uxr nqdku izkFkhZ izR;FkhZx.k "}kjk izkFkh la02 vuwi dqekj ik.Ms; ds QkLV QwM dkuZj ds O;olk; gsrq fjyht fd, tkus dh izkFkZuk dh xbZ gS vkSj ;gh vko';drk crkbZ xbZ gS A ;gkW ij fopkj djuk gS fd D;k mDr dfFkr vko';drk Hkou Lokeh dh cksukQkbM uhM gS vFkok ugha \ ;g lqLFkkfir gS fd izkFkhZ izR;FkhZx.k iz'uxr Hkou la0 lh-ds- 37@31 ds Lokeh o yS.M ykMZ gS A ;g Hkh lk{; ls LFkkfir gS fd bl Hkou ds vykok muds ikl dksbZ vU; Hkou ugha gS A ;g Hkh LFkkfir gS fd nksuksa izkFkhZx.k Hkou Lokeh x.k dksbZ O;olk; ughas djrs gSA ;n~fir fd vihykFkhZ dk dFku gS fd izkFkhZ la02 Bsdsnkjh dk dke djrk gS A ;g Bssdsnkjh  ¿dU~VsDV�? dk O;olk; vfuf'pr izdkj dk O;olk; gS A LFkkbZ vk; dk Jksr ugha gks ldrk A ;g Hkh fooj.k ugha gS fd vuwi dqekj ik.Ms; fdl izdkj dh Bsdsnkjh dk dk;Z vkSj dgkW djrk gS rFkk blls mls D;k vk; gksrh gS vkSj gks ldrh gS A bl ij dksbZ fu"d"kZ ugha fn;k tk ldrk gS A ;g Hkh Ik=koyh ls Li"V gS fd vuwi dqekj ik.Ms; vfookfgr gS A mlds dksbZ iq= iqf=;kW ugha gS A mez c<us ds lkFk 'kkjhfjd #Ik ls  O;fDr detksj gh gksrk gS vkSj vR;f/kd Je dk dk;Z ugha dj ldrk gS A iz'u ;g gS fd ftl QkLV QwM dh O;olk; izkFkhZ vuwi dqekj ik.Ms; fd, tkus ds fy, izLrkfor djrk gS] D;k og dj ldrk gS vFkok ugh\a  QkLV QwM dk O;kikj vFkok [kkn~; inkFkZ  dks fcdzh dk O;kikj tks [kkn~; inkFkZ rS;kj gkWyr esa [kkus ds fy, gksrk gS vkSj rRdky fcdzh ds fy, mi;qDr gksrk gS A bl rjg dk O;kikj dksbZ O;fDr ,d LFkku ij cSBdj vklkuh ls dj ldrk gS vkSj vR;f/kd Jelk/; ugha gS A^^

                It found respondent no.4 was unmarried, with the advancement of age he will not be able to do hard work, as such it can not be said that he had no bonafide need to shift himself in the business which is less taxing from which he could have permanent income. The Court has held that in the facts and circumstances of the case the bonafide need and comparative hardship of the respondent-landlords was greater than the petitioner-tenant and further that even if the tenant has to pay higher rent in getting another shop nearby, the comparative hardship will not be in his favour.

The Appellate Court lastly gave a finding of fact that the petitioner has not made any effort to search and shift in a suitable alternative accommodation inspite of the release application being filed while holding that there is no evidence that the petitioner will rent out the shop on premium. The Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and order dated 8.9.2004 passed by the Prescribed Authority while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. The findings of the Appellate Court are as under:-

^^ vc ;g fu.khZr fd;k tkuk gS fd D;k QkLV QwM dkuZj [kksyus o mldk O;olk; djus dh cksukQkbM vko';drk izkFkhz la02 dks gS ;k ;g mldh ek= bPNk gS vkSj bPNk nf'kZr djus gsrq vihykFkhZ dks iz'uxr nqdku ls csn[ky djuk vuqfpr ykHk vftZr djrk gS \

     vkihykFkhZ dh vksj ls ,slk dksbZ lk{; ugha gS ftlls ;g fl/n~ gks fd Hkou Lokeh izR;FkhZ fdlh vU; O;fDr dks iz'uxr nqdku T;knk iSlk ys iqu%fdjk, ij nsuk pkgrk gks A blfy, bl lEcU/k esa vihykFkhZ dk rdZ Lohdk;Z gksus ;ksX; ugha gS A pwWfd izR;FkhZ la[;k&2 vuqi dqekj ik.Ms; dh vk; dk dksbZ Jksr nf'kZr ugha gS A blfy, QkLV QqM dkuZj dh nqdku [kksyus dh mldh vko';drk fuf'pr #Ik ls ln~Hkkoh vko';drk gS A dksbZ nqHkkZouk Ik=koyh miyC/k vfHkys[kksa ls nf'kZr ugha gks jgh gS vkSj u rks izR;FkhZ Hkou Lokeh dk ,slk dksbZ d`R; gh lkfcr gS ftlls mldh dksbZ nqHkkZouk nf'kZr gksA tgkW rd izR;FkhZ Hkou Lokeh ds edku esa ,d gky@cSBdk gksus dk iz'u gS] og fufoZokn gS fd og  LFkku izR;FkhZx.k ds firk tks ,d vf/koDrk Fks] mudk psEcj gS A vf/koDrk dk psEcj O;kolkf;d LFky ugha ekuk tk ldrk vkSj vf/koDrk ds fu/ku ds Ik'pkr ml LFkku ij ,slk dksbZ ifjorZu ;k LFkku esa ifjoRZkZu gksuk nf'kZr ughaa gS ftlls ml LFkku dks O;kolkf;d ekuk tk;s A vr,o dfFkr gky@cSBdk ,slk LFkku ugha ekuk tk ldrk tgkW izR;FkhZ vuwi dqekj ik.Ms; QkLV QwM dk O;olk; dj ldsa A

tgkW rd rqyukRed dfBukbZ dk iz'u gS] ;g eku Hkh fy;k tkW;  fd izR;FkhZ dk Hkou vkoklh; gS tks blls fl} ugha ekuk tk,xk fd rqyukRed dfBukbZ fdjk;snkj vihykFkhZ dh vf/kd gS A Hkou Lokeh Lo;a csjkstxkj gS A mldh vk; dk dksbZ L=ksr ugha gS A vkSj vihykFkhZ ds vuqlkj Hkh og meznjkt gks jgk gS A ,slh fLFkfr esa mlds fy, vius thou@thfodk pykus ds fy, vk; dk gksuk vko';d gS vksj ;fn ,slk ugha gksrk gS rks mldk rqyukRed #Ik ls T;knk dfBukbZ gksxh A ;g Hkh fof/k O;oLFkk lss LFkkfir gS fd ;fn fdjk;snkj dks oSdfYid ,sdkseksZMs'ku ds fy, T;knk fdjk;k nsuk IkMs rks rqyukRed  dfBukbZ mlds Ik{k esa ugh ekuh tk,xhA ;gkW ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd fdjk,snkj vihykFkhZ us ;g iznf'kZr ugha fd;k gS fd mlus fdlh oSdfYid ,dkseksMs'ku dh ryk'k ds fy, dksbzZ iz;kl fd;k Fkk ;k ugha vkSj ;fn fd;k rks D;k iz;kl fd;k A mDr fLFkfr esa eSa bl er dk gWw fd vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls mBk, x, rdZ fof/k vuqdwy ugha gS vkSj Lohdkj gksus ;ksX; ugha gSaA voj U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr iz'uxr fu.kZ;&vkns'k fnukafdr 8&9&2004 esa fn, x;s fu"d"kZ mfpr gS vkSj lk{; rFkk Ik=koyh ij miyC/k fjdkMZ ij vk/kkfjr gS A vLrq vihy Lohdkj gksus ;ksX; ugha gS] vfirqw [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gS A

                 vkns'k

     izLrwqr vihy lO;; [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA iz'uxr fu.kZ; vkns'k fnukad 8-9-2004 dh iqf"V dh tkrh gSA

fnukad 10-10-2006                    g0 viBuh;

                                   10-10-2006

                                 ¿uUn yky �?

                              vij tuin U;k;k/kh'k

                                U;k;ky; la[;k&9

                                     Okkjk.klh A ^^

This writ petition has been filed against the concurrent findings of fact of the Appellate Court dated 10.10.2006 dismissing Rent Appeal No. 195 of 2004 filed by the petitioner and judgment and order dated 8.9.2004 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Varanasi filed by respondent no.3 under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.  

The Appellate Court has rightly come to the findings that the petitioner can shift his business to his house, which   incidentally according to the petitioner has no direct passage as admittedly, the petitioner uses a common passage to reach there. A common passage is one not under exclusive use and possession of a person i.e. on which there is no right of any person, hence it can be used by all or any person who has to come to the house of the petitioner. In any case the Court has made it open to the petitioner that he could have taken a shop on higher rent if the house in which he is living is not suitable for the purpose of his business.

There is no evidence on record or any averments to show that the petitioner had tried to search out a suitable accommodation for shifting his business even on higher rent at any place nearby. The petitioner is having one shop in his house, he can do there. Once a release application is filed by the landlords it is obligatory and mandatory upon the tenant under the Provisions of the Act at least make some efforts to search out the alternative accommodation irrespective of the orders of the Prescribed Authority or the Appellate Authority or the Revisional Court.

In view of the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below regarding bonafide need and comparative hardship of the landlords and in view of the fact that the petitioner has not been able to show any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

The petitioner shall handover peaceful and vacant possession of the shop in dispute to the respondent-landlords within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. In case the petitioner fails to comply with the directions given by this Court within the stipulated time, it is open to the landlords to get the petitioner evicted by assistance of police force.

No order as to costs.

Dated 27.11.2006

CPP/-

       

       


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.