High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Bachau Lal And Another v. Sri Bhaiya Lal - WRIT - A No. 58410 of 2006  RD-AH 17996 (19 October 2006)
Court no. 7
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 58410 of 2006
Bachau Lal and another versus Sri Bhaiya Lal
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Brief facts of the case are that respondent-landlord filed P.A. Case No. 8 of 2001 under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of the disputed premises no. K24/64 situate in Mohalla Ramghat, district Varanasi under the tenancy of the petitioners.
The petitioner filed his objection denying the plaint allegations.
The trial Court vide its order dated 25.9.2004 allowed the release application of the respondent-landlord.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 25.9.2004 the petitioners preferred Appeal No. 206 of 2004 before the appellate Court which too was dismissed vide order dated 21.9.2006, hence this writ petition by the petitioners.
The counsel for the petitioners submits that both the courts below have committed an illegality in not considering the bonafide need and comparative hardship of the petitioners while passing the impugned orders dated 25.9.2004 and 21.9.2006 and the respondent has illegally set up a false case that petitioner no.2 is the sub-tenant of petitioner no.1.
The contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that the landlord has another shop for doing his business and his son is doing the business of milk product and thereafter it sells to the consumers for which he requires no shop and he can do this business of selling milk on a bicycle.
The counsel for the respondent submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the aforesaid impugned orders of both the courts below and courts below have rightly determined the bonafide need and comparative hardship in favour of the respondent-landlord. He further submits that no case interference is required by this Court.
Admittedly, the petitioner has his own shop. Moreover, it is emerged from the record that the petitioner is doing his business in another shop and has inducted his brother in the disputed shop. Brother is not a member of the family and he could not be inducted in the shop, which has been taken on rent by the petitioner. The need of the petitioners is not bonafide. Comparative hardship also appears in favour of the landlord. No case for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is made out.
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.