Dismissed

Smt. Sushma Arora and 3 Others v. Additional District Judge and 6 Others

Allahabad HC10 May 2018WRIA/11134/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an appellate order releasing a tenanted property to the landlord. The Court held that there was no ground to interfere as the Appellate Authority had independently re-examined evidence and recorded findings on bona fide need and comparative hardship without perversity.

What did the court decide?

None. The writ petition seeking to set aside the appellate order releasing the property to the landlord was dismissed.

Smt. Sushma Arora and 3 Others Vs Additional District… — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 26

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11134 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Sushma Arora And 3 Others Respondent :- Additional District Judge And 6 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Singh,Ashish Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Pankaj Agarwal

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.

¶6

(ORAL)

¶7

I have heard Mr Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners-tenant and Mr Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondentlandlord.

¶8

Mr Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners-tenants has submitted that Laxman Das Arora was the tenant running a Book Depot in the Name & Style of M/s Cambrige Book Depot from the shop in question situated at Saharanpur. He was tenant of one Manmohan Das Jain and he had been allotted the said shop under the Rent Control Act. Manmohan Das Jain had filed an application for declaration of vacancy on the ground that Laxman Das Arora was not doing any business in the shop in question, but had passed on the possession of the shop to an unauthorised

¶9

person, namely, Chandra Prakash Arora. The application for vacancy was allowed, but Laxman Das Arora filed a Writ Petition before this Court, wherein he was held to be the Karta of Hindu undivided family and the tenant of the shop in question run under the Name & Style of M/s Cambrige Book Depot. After the disposal of this writ petition by this Court on 01.07.1980, Laxman Das Arora continued to run the shop in question and Chandra Prakash Arora was his brother. Laxman Das Arora shifted his family to Mussourie was was running his business at Mussourie at Mall Road under the same Name of M/s Cambrige Book Depot. The brother Chandra Prakash Arora continued as tenant of Trilok Chandra Jain and Manmohan Das Jain. Manmohan Das Jain transferred the ownership of the property in question on 31.03.1992 in favour of M/s Khurana Estate Agencies Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at New Delhi. M/s Khurana Estate Agencies Pvt. Ltd. the respondent No. 3 herein launched proceedings for vacation of the property in question by filing application under section 21(1) (b) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, which was registered

¶10

as P.A. Case No. 77 of 1996. In this application the ground taken was that the building in question in a very bad and dilapidated condition and needed to be reconstructed after demolition. In 1999 however, an application under section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed, wherein respondent No. 3 showed bona fide need to establish an office in the building concerned after its reconstruction on the ground that he was running an office in a rented accommodation at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month in the said city of Saharanpur. M/s Cambrige Book Depot was arrayed as defendant No. 1, Satpal Singh Chhabara was arrayed as defendant No. 2, Chandra Prakash Arora was arrayed as defendant No. 3 and Laxman Das Arora was arrayed as defendant No. 4. It was mentioned in the Release Application that after Laxman Das Arora shifted his business to Mussourie, a partnership firm was created by Chandra Prakash Arora along with Satpal Singh Chhabara and the Rent Control & Eviction Officer allotted the premises in question in favour of partnership firm thereafter under the Act. In 1996, the said partnership was dissolved and

¶11

the right to the property in question regarding tenancy devolved upon Satpal Singh Chhabara alone.

¶12

In the written submission filed by Satpal Singh Chhabara, defendant No. 2, he virtually admitted the contents of the Release Application filed by the landlord. Chandra Prakash Arora, the defendant No. 3 however contested the matter on merits and stated that the Partnership Deed alleged to have been signed between him and Satpal Singh Chhabara, was a forged document and its alleged dissolution was also false and fabricated story and that Chandra Prakash Arora being the brother of Laxman Das Arora, the tenant of the property in question, he was carrying on the family business in the shop in question.

¶13

It has been argued that after leading of evidence, the Prescribed Authority allowed the application of Release without giving any independent finding on any of the issues raised. The Prescribed Authority in its order dated 11.04.2017 only mentioned the contention of the landlord and that of the various defendants and referred to several judgments of the Hon'ble

¶14

Supreme Court with regard to bona fide need and comparative hardship and directed release of the property in question.

¶15

Aggrieved by the order dated 11.04.2017, the Rent Control Appeal No. 4 of 2017 was filed by Chandra Prakash Arora, who died during the pendency of the appeal and was substituted by his legal heirs and representatives, the petitioner Nos. 1 to 4. Before the Appellate Court also the tenants brought evidence on record to show that there was no bona fide need of the landlord and that Satpal Singh Chhabara had been arrayed as defendant No. 2 in the Release Application only to create confusion. The contents of the Release Application were vague as it was not disclosed as to what manner of business was proposed to be carried out from the shop in question after its release by the Prescribed Authority.

¶16

It has been submitted by Mr Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners-tenants that the Appellate Court while holding that Chandra Prakash Arora was the tenant of the property in question, as Laxman Das Arora never contested the Release Application or filed any

¶17

Appeal, virtually sat over the order passed by this Court dated 01.07.1980. With regard to confusion in the order passed by the Prescribed Authority regarding whether Satpal Singh Chhabara or Chandra Prakash Arora were the tenants of the property in question, the Appellate Authority stated that Chandra Prakash Arora was in actual possession as tenant, therefore, it amounted to over turning the order passed by this Court holding Chandra Prakash Arora to be the tenant and Karta of Hindu undivided family, who ran the business in the Name & Style of M/s Cambrige Book Depot.

¶18

Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, landlord on the other hand has pointed out from the order passed by the Prescribed Authority that the Prescribed Authority has considered the evidence adduced by the parties and has recorded finding regarding bona fide need not only of the landlord but that of his son also. Pulkit Agarwal, son of Ashok Kachchal, who had growing during the pendency of the Release Application and had Graduated in Engineering and needed to set up his own independent business also.

¶19

Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out several passages from the order passed by the Appellate Authority, where the Appellate Authority has reconsidered all evidence adduced before the Prescribed Authority and has come to the conclusion that the tenant could not show that he was carrying out any business in the shop in question. It had remained closed and during the 17 years of pendency of release application, the tenant had also not made any effort to search for alternative accommodation. The tenant's appeal with regard to several undetermined issues in the Prescribed Authority's order had been dealt with in sufficient detail in the Appellate Court's order. The Appellate Court had found on evidence adduced by the parties before the Prescribed Authority that Laxman Das Arora never appeared during the pendency of the Release Application despite service upon him, neither did he contest the matter at any stage nor filed any Appeal against the order passed by the Appellate Authority. The evidence was led that Laxman Das Arora had shifted his business as well as his family and was

¶20

settled in Mussourie and that his son continued with his business at Mussourie and after his death, his grandson started another Firm by the name of Readers Paradise Pvt. Ltd., again at Mussourie. It was Chandra Prakash Arora, who had contested the matter on merits before the Prescribed Authority and had also filed an Appeal, Chandra Prakash Arora had managed to continue in possession of the property in question and delay the matter regarding Release Application for the past 17 years. All the time he had paid rent of Rs. 12/- per month only. The subsequent development of the son of the landlord having grownup and having acquired B. Tech has also been considered validly by the Appellate Authority as subsequent development can be taken into account. The need of the landlord to set up his office and the need of the son of the landlord both were considered as bona fide and genuine and pressing. The comparative hardship of the tenant had also been dealt with in the Appellate Order as also the legal submissions regarding applicability of the case laws relied upon by the Prescribed Authority by allowing the Release Application.

¶21

Lastly, the learned counsel for the respondentlandlord has submitted that there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by two learned courts below. No perversity has been shown in the findings of fact by the tenant, and therefore, this Court should not interfere in supervisory jurisdiction exercised by its in this writ petition.

¶22

I have considered the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, which no doubt lacks sufficient details insofar as the recording finding regarding bona fide need and comparative hardship of the landlord viz-a-viz the tenant is concerned, but on perusal of the order passed by the Appellate Authority, it is evident that the Appellate Authority has reconsidered all evidence adduced before the Prescribed Authority by either of the parties and has returned independent finding on the said evidence adduced with regard to bona fide need and comparative hardship of the landlord viz-a-viz the tenant.

¶23

I do not think, there is any good ground to interfere under extraordinary jurisdiction exercised by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this writ petition.

¶24

The writ petition is dismissed.

¶25

No order as to costs.

¶26

Order Date :- 10.5.2018 Sazia

Smt. Sushma Arora and 3 Others v. Additional District Judge and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sushma Arora and 3 Others v. Additional District Judge and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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