High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Lal v. Ii Adj - WRIT - A No. 24486 of 1989  RD-AH 2020 (25 January 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24486 of 1989
Ram Lal Versus II Additional District Judge, Meerut and others.
Hon'ble S.U.Khan J
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This is tenant's writ petition arising out of eviction / release proceedings initiated by landlord respondent No.2, Mool Chand on the ground of bonafide need under section 21 of U.P Act No.13 of 1972.
Property in dispute is having a Khaprail room and a small verandah. Landlord respondent No.2 filed five release applications against five tenants including the petitioner in respect of similar adjacent accommodations. The names of other tenants against whom also release applications were filed are Kishori, Mangal Sen, Smt. Vora and Bhure. Similar cases were set up against each and every tenant. All the applications were dismissed. Release application against petitioner was registered as P.A. Case No. 105 of 1979 and was dismissed by prescribed authority Meerut on 1.5.1982. Against all the five judgments passed by the prescribed authority, landlord respondent No.2 filed five appeals being appeal Nos. 196 to 200 of 1982. Number of appeal against the petitioner was 200 of 1982. All other appeals were dismissed and landlord did not file any writ petition against those judgments. Two of the appeals, which were filed against Bhure and Kishori were numbered as appeal No. 197 of 1982 and 199 of 1982. They were decided by District Judge, Meerut through judgment and order dated 30.5.1987. Copies of the said judgments were filed before the appellate court before whom appeal against the tenant petitioner (appeal No. 200 of 1982 was pending). However II A.D.J Meerut did not even mention in its judgment dated 8.12.1989 that other appeals had been earlier dismissed on 30.5.1987. This writ petition is directed against order dated 8.12.1989 through which II A.D.J allowed the appeal of landlord respondent No.2 against tenant petitioner, set-aside the judgment and order passed by the prescribed authority dated 1.5.1982 and allowed the release application of the landlord respondent No.2
In my opinion, exactly similar points had been taken by the landlord against all the tenants, hence there was no occasion to take a different view only in the case of petitioner. Appellate court committed a grave error of law in ignoring the judgments passed earlier, certified copies of which were filed before him.
Even otherwise in para beginning with the words ''in the first place' appellate court in its judgment has observed as under:
"Every landlord has a right to raise his income by any legitimate means and one of such legitimate means could be letting out of certain accommodation for commercial and residential use. This can not disentitle him from making an application for release subsequently in case he actually faces genuine and bonafide need. The aforesaid letting was done in he year 1977. But the application for release in question was moved in the year 1979."
If within two years before filing of the release application residential property is let out by the landlord then it can not be said that his need for residence is bonafide. Nothing was brought on record by the landlord to show that fresh need cropped up in between 1977 and 1979. Even otherwise need set up in all the release applications was so compact in nature that either all (or substantial number of) the applications could be allowed or none.
Accordingly I am of the opinion that judgment and order passed by appellate court is erroneous in law and liable to be set-aside.
Writ petition is therefore allowed. Judgment and order passed by the appellate court dated 8.12.1989 is set-aside. Judgment and order passed by the prescribed authority dated 1.5.1982 is restored.
I have held in Khursheeda Vs. A.D.J 2004(2) ARC 64 that while granting relief against eviction to the tenant in respect of building covered by Rent Control Act, writ court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent. Existing rent of Rs. 7/- per month is virtually as well as actually no rent.
Accordingly, it is directed that with effect from February 2006 onwards, petitioner shall pay rent to the landlord respondent at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.