Allowed

Sanjay Prakash v. Anand Goel

Allahabad HC9 May 2018A227/3285/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble High Court allowed a Part II PIL challenging rejection of an Amin Commission application. The court modified the impugned order directing trial court to appoint an Amin Commission to inspect specific adjoining shops and tenant's shop, rather than the entire property.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 27.10.2017 modified to appoint an Amin Commission for inspection of tenant's shop and two adjoining shops in Bungalow No. 293-A Abu Lane, Meerut.

Sanjay Prakash Vs Anand Goel — Specific Performance | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 26

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3285 of 2018 Petitioner :- Sanjay Prakash Respondent :- Anand Goel Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinayak Mithal

¶3

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.

¶4

Oral

¶5

This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.10.2017 passed by the Judge Small Causes Court, Meerut in P.A. Case No. 10 of 2016 (Anand Goel Vs. Sanjay Prakash). The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of Paper No. 25-Ga.

¶6

The learned counsel for the petitioner / tenant has submitted that the landlord had filed a Release Application under Section 21(1)(a) depicting his bonafide need to establish his wife in independent business of ready made garments. In the Release Application in paragraphs 5 & 7, the landlord had mentioned the existence of three shops towards the South of the property bearing no. 293-A Abu Lane, Meerut owned by the landlord and had also admitted letting out of the shop in question in 1982 to the tenant. The other two shops adjoining the shop of the tenant had never been rented out and were being used as godown for storing goods in relation to the business of the landlord as commission agent for sugar.

¶7

The tenant in his objections had disputed the commercial area available with the landlord and also the area behind the commercial area used for residential purpose by the landlord. He had given dimensions which according to him,

¶8

correctly depicted the situation of his shop and the adjoining two shops and the residential area owned by the landlord.

¶9

The landlord in his rejoinder had seriously disputed the contentions of the tenant with regard to not only the commercial area available in the property in question i.e. property bearing no. 293-A Abu Lane, Meerut, but also the area in possession of the landlord utilised as a residence.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner / tenant on the basis of the pleadings on record has submitted that need was therefore felt for filing an application to appoint an Amin Commission to look into the correct possession on the spot. This application has been rejected by the learned Trial Court on the ground that it would further delay the matter and the petitioner / tenant had been given several opportunities to present his evidence which he had also done before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court has further observed that the process of Court cannot be used to collect additional evidence.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner / tenant submitted that the landlord himself while filing his objections to Paper No. 25-Ga had expressed no objections to the commercial area in property bearing no. 293-A Abu Lane, Meerut being inspected. He had only objected to the residential part of the premises being inspected by the Amin Commission.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner / tenant has also relied upon a judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this

¶13

Court in Harish Chandra Jauhari Vs. Sunil Bajpai 2008 ARC (3) 171 wherein with regard to serious dispute between the tenant and the landlord regarding the area available for the landlord for residential purpose, an application for appointment of Amin Commission had been rejected.

¶14

This Court had observed that since there was a serious dispute between the parties as to the extent of accommodation available with the landlord, it was necessary that an Advocate Commissioner should have been appointed to submit a report of the accommodation available with the landlord after the inspection. This Court observed that the application filed by the tenant for appointment of Amin Commission should therefore have been allowed.

¶15

Sri K.K. Arora appearing for the respondent / landlord has seriously objected to the contents of the application Paper No. 25-Ga. According to him, the application amounts to conducting an enquiry into all the property in possession of the landlord in the city of Meerut. At best, the petitioner / tenant can ask for inspection of the alleged commercial area / adjoining two shops available in the property in dispute i.e. property bearing no. 293-A Abu Lane, Meerut.

¶16

Sri K.K. Arora, learned counsel for the respondent / landlord has also pointed out that the order impugned is six months old and in the order impugned itself, it has been mentioned by the learned Trial Court that several opportunities have been given to the defendant / tenant to place his evidence

¶17

on record which he has also done, and therefore, there was no need to issue an Amin Commission to look into the premises in question.

¶18

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the order impugned and other papers on record, it is evident that the landlord had filed a map of the property in question i.e. Bungalow No. 293-A Abu Lane, Meerut in his statement of evidence on affidavit where he had mentioned the dimensions of the adjoining two shops and the shop under tenancy of the petitioner.

¶19

It is the landlord's case that the adjoining two shops to the petitioner's shop are being used for commercial purpose by him as a storage godown and as an office. The petitioner / tenant has disputed this map in his application Paper No. 25-Ga. Since, there is a serious dispute regarding the availability of two adjoining shops and it is the petitioners case that no business in fact is being conducted in the two adjoining shops by the landlord and they are lying vacant and can be utilised for setting up the landlord's wife in independent business of ready made garments, the Amin Commission can be appointed. However, this Court feels that the application of the petitioner for appointment of Amin Commission Paper No. 25-Ga cannot be allowed in its entirety. It shall be considered only to appoint an Amin Commission to inspect the adjoining two shops situated in Bungalow No. 293-A Abu Lane, Meerut.

¶20

The learned Trial Court's order dated 27.10.2017 is modified to this extent alone that application Paper No. 25-Ga shall

¶21

now be considered only for appointment of Amin Commission for inspection of the shop rented out to the tenant and the two adjoining shops situated in the Bungalow in question.

¶22

The order on the application Paper No. 25-Ga shall be passed by the learned Trial Court within a period of two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it. The learned Trial Court shall fix the date and in the presence of the petitioner / tenant and the landlord and their Advocates, the Amin Commission shall inspect the shop in question and submit his report within a further period of three weeks.

¶23

The petition is disposed of.

¶24

Order Date :- 9.5.2018 Arif

Sanjay Prakash v. Anand Goel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Prakash v. Anand Goel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Allahabad Bank Vs Abhishek Gupta

Prabhat Kumar and Brothers Vs Prescribed Athority/Judge, Small Causes Court and Another

Deoki Nandan Vs Mohan Lal Agarwal and 3 Others

Sanjay and 4 Ors. Vs Rajkumar

Shri Grish Kumar Vs Smt. Radha Agarwal

Arya Samaj Deoria through Its Pradhan Raj Kumar Agrawal Vs Ravindra Singh