Partly allowed

Bilal Ahmad v. Additional Civil Judge and Another

Allahabad HC14 May 2018A227/3358/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner tenant challenged the rejection of his application for local inspection of adjoining premises. Single Judge allowed the petition in part, setting aside impugned order and remanding matter to lower court to decide application afresh and conduct inspection if landlord's need for the specific house is found substantive.

What did the court decide?

Rejected order set aside; matter remanded to lower court to decide application afresh and conduct local inspection if landlord's need for holding house is substantive.

Bilal Ahmad Vs Additional Civil Judge and Another — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 26

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3358 of 2018 Petitioner :- Bilal Ahmad Respondent :- Additional Civil Judge And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Manas Bhargava

¶3

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.

¶4

Oral

¶5

This petition has been filed by the petitioner / tenant praying for quashing of the order dated 19.1.2018 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Case No. 7 of 2014 (Mohd Imtiaz Vs. Bilal Ahmad) by which application no. 35 moved by the petitioner / tenant has been rejected by the Court below.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was inducted as a tenant of house no. 44/37, Chaubey Gola Bakarmandi, Kanpur Nagar initially on rent of Rs. 115/- per month on the ground floor which has now been increased and the tenant is now paying Rs. 500/- per month.

¶7

The respondent no. 2 filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 registered as Rent Case No. 7 of 2014 setting up bonafide need / requirement for residence of growing family of the respondent / landlord.

¶8

The petitioner filed his objections denying the bonafide need and stating clearly that the landlord was concealing the fact that he has an adjoining house no. 44/36 wherein he can reside with his family. In the reply to the said objections, the landlord had accepted that he had also one

¶9

house no. 44/36, but had stated that the said house was not in his possession, as there were three tenants residing therein. Since, there was a dispute regarding availability of accommodation to the landlord, the application no. 35 was filed by the tenant for local inspection of the premises in question i.e. house no. 44/37 as also house no. 44/36.

¶10

There is a provision under Section 34(1)(g) read with Rule 22(f) in the Act and the Rules of 1972 that an Amin Commission can be issued for determination of correct facts, if there is a serious dispute with regard to availability of accommodation with the parties.

¶11

The said application has been rejected by the order impugned.

¶12

The learned Trial Court has observed that in the written statement, certain seriously disputed facts have been stated which cannot be resolved by a report being summoned on Commission. With regard to the facts mentioned in the application for which the Commission is sought to be issued, the tenant can file his evidence on affidavit / documentary evidence and there is no provision in law wherein the process of Court can be utilised for collecting of evidence.

¶13

The learned Court below has relied upon judgment rendered by this Court in Radhey Shyam Vs. Additional District Judge, Lucknow & other 2010 (2) ALJ 758 and Krishn Mohan Mehrotra Vs. Additional District Judge, Lakhimpur & other 2014 (4) ALJ 774 and observed that

¶14

there may be only a discretion on the Trial Court to allow or reject such an application and just because an application for issuance of Commission is filed, no Commission can be issued as a matter of course.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the quinquennial assessment of the property in question, the mother of the landlord has been recorded as owner of the two houses and no names of any tenants have been shown.

¶16

This Court finds on a consideration of facts as mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in the order impugned that no doubt the tenant can not insist upon local inspection of adjoining house said to be in possession of the landlord, because a tenant has no right to suggest to the landlord to reside at a particular place or a particular house, if bonafide need of the landlord has been set up for the house in question, in which the tenant is residing but if a serious dispute regarding the said house is raised by the tenant, then local inspection of the house in which the tenant is residing can be directed to resolve serious and disputed questions of fact.

¶17

Consequently, the order dated 19.1.2018 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Trial Court to decide application no. 35 afresh taking into account the observations made herein above and the learned Trial Court if it finds some substance in the argument made by the tenant with regard to availability of accommodation to the landlord in house no. 44/37, then the learned Trial Court may fix a date for local inspection of the premises i.e. house

¶18

no. 44/37 alone. The inspection shall be carried out on the date fixed in the presence of the Advocate for the parties as well as the parties themselves and the report shall be submitted by such Amin on inspection within a period of fourteen days thereafter.

¶19

Learned Trial Court shall take a decision after inviting objections on the said report following the ordinary process of law.

¶20

The petition is partly allowed to this extent.

¶21

Order Date :- 14.5.2018 Arif

Bilal Ahmad v. Additional Civil Judge and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bilal Ahmad v. Additional Civil Judge and Another

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

Dr. Sunil Malhotra Vs Surendra Singh and 2 Others

Smt. Shahida Jamal Vs Matiur Raza Begh and 4 Others

Hari Mohan Asthana Vs Additional District Judge and 2 Others

Mukteshwar Tiwari Vs XVIth Additional District Judge,Kanpur Nagar and Another

Shobhit Kapoor Vs Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and 2 Others

Moolchandra Vs Surajobai Balika Inter College Kila Gate Hathras