Dismissed

Ashok Agrawal and 2 Others v. Shaukat Ali

Allahabad HC6 Nov 2019A227/7611/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Article 227 challenged the Rent Control Appeal judgment dismissing the tenant's appeal against eviction. The Court upheld the lower courts' findings that the landlord had no alternative accommodation and the tenant owned multiple properties, dismissing the petition for lack of merit.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; any interim order granted earlier was vacated.

Ashok Agrawal and 2 Others Vs Shaukat Ali — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 5

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7611 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ashok Agrawal And 2 Others Respondent :- Shaukat Ali Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammed Iftekhar Counsel for Respondent :- Naresh Taneja,Ashish Agarwal

¶3

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

¶4

Heard Sri P.K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohammed Aftekhar, learned counsel for the tenant - petitioners and Sri Ashish Agarwal, learned counsel for the plaintiff / landlord / respondent.

¶5

Briefly stated facts of the present case are that undisputably the plaintiff - respondent is the owner and landlord of the disputed building bearing Municipal No. 267-A, Sadar Bazar, Cantt., Allahabad of which the defendant - petitioners are the tenant.

¶6

It is a small building measuring 12' 6'' x 17'. The plaintiff - respondent issued a notice dated 29.9.1999 by registered post to the defendant - petitioners asking them to vacate the disputed building on expiry of the period of notice. This notice was replied by the defendant - petitioners on 25.10.1999. Since, the notice was not complied with, therefore the plaintiff-respondent filed P.A. Case No. 13 of 2000 (Shaukat Ali Vs. Mata Deen Agarwal) on the ground of his bonafide need of the disputed building. The aforesaid P.A. Case No. 13 of 2000 was decreed by judgment and decree dated 10.9.2009 passed by the Prescribed Authority / Judge Small Cause Court,

¶7

Allahabad. Aggrieved with this judgment, the defendant / tenant / respondent filed a Rent Control Appeal No. 135 of 2009 (Mata Deen Agarwal Vs. Shaukat Ali) which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 26.7.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 10, Allahabad. Aggrieved with these two judgments, the defendant / tenant / petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶8

Learned counsel for the tenant - petitioners submits that the plaintiff - respondent is an old person, and therefore, he cannot be said to be in bonafide need of the disputed building. He further submits that under interim order of this Court the rent was enhanced, and therefore, the need of the plaintiff - respondent stood satisfied.

¶9

No other argument has been raised before this Court.

¶10

Learned counsel for the plaintiff - respondent supports the impugned judgment.

¶11

I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment.

¶12

Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact based on consideration of relevant evidences on record that the plaintiff - respondent does not own any other accommodation except the disputed building. He himself is residing with sixth members in two rooms rented accommodation. The fact that the defendant / tenant / petitioners owned several houses in the same locality, has not been disputed even before me.

¶13

Both the Courts below have found on the basis of

¶14

evidences on record that the defendant / tenant / petitioners owned several houses. It has also been found that from some houses owned by him, commercial activities are also being carried on. Under the circumstances, the Courts below have not committed any manifest error of law to come to the conclusion on the basis of evidences on record that the plaintiff - respondent is in bonafide need of the disputed building and comparative hardship is in his favour. The findings recorded by the Courts below are findings of fact based on consideration of relevant evidences on record which cannot be interfered with in jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶15

For all the reasons aforestated, I do not find any merit in this petition. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed .

¶16

Interim order, if any, granted earlier is vacated.

¶17

Order Date :- 6.11.2019 Arif

Ashok Agrawal and 2 Others v. Shaukat Ali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Agrawal and 2 Others v. Shaukat Ali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Neelam Agrawal and Another Vs Rahul Gupta and Another

Deo Raj Vs the Court of the Judge Small Causes, Allahabad and 5 Others

Mohan Babu Agarwal Vs the Additional District JUDGE-6, Aligarh and 2 Others

Hemant Bharti and Another Vs Mohd. Taj

Banke Lal Agrawal Vs Smt. Dr. Mithilesh Bansal and 2 Others

Ramesh Kumar Gautam Vs Suresh Chandra Gupta