Dismissed

Mohd. Umer v. Afsar Ali

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2019WRIA/27809/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ challenge against a release order granting possession to a landlord. Finding no error in the lower courts' factual determinations regarding the landlord's bona fide needs and comparative hardship, the Court allowed the petitioner to remain for nine months conditional upon surrendering possession and paying rent.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to retain possession for nine months subject to undertaking to vacate by delivery of vacant possession and payment of rent for the period.

Mohd. Umer Vs Afsar Ali — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 19

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 27809 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Mohd. Umer Respondent :- Afsar Ali Counsel for Petitioner :- Abdul Majeed,Sufia Saba Counsel for Respondent :- Mahtab Alam

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard counsel for the parties.

¶6

The petitioner has challenged the release order passed in proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1973 (for short 'the Act') by Prescribed Authority dated 26.4.2017 in P.A. Case No.22 of 2013 and the judgement and order dated 27.9.2018 passed by VIth Additional District Judge, Rampur in Rent Appeal No.2 of 2017 dismissing the appeal. The Prescribed Authority has allowed the release application finding need of Asad son of the landlord for the shop in dispute to be genuine and bona fide. The appellate court has affirmed the said finding; hence the instant petition.

¶7

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Prescribed Authority has not framed any issue while deciding the release application. The proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act are in nature of summary proceedings and provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure do not strictly apply and as such issues are not required to be framed. However, the Prescribed Authority has considered in detail the points which arose for consideration, based upon pleadings of the parties. It has returned a specific finding that the claim set up by the petitioner that he had advanced Rs.50,000/- to the respondent-landlord and there was an agreement that at the time of determination of tenancy the advance would be returned, was not found to be proved. The Prescribed Authority has also held that the son of the landlord namely Asad required the disputed shop bonafidely for running a tailoring shop as he was found to be not having any permanent source of income. The comparative hardship was also found in favour of the respondent-landlord.

¶8

The next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner pointed out that there were other shops in the residential building owned by the

¶9

landlord but which he had let out to various tenants. It is submitted that his need was not bonafide, else the shops would not have been let out.

¶10

Concededly, it is not the case of the petitioner that any of the shop was let out just before filing of the release application or during pendency of the case. It is also not the case of the petitioner that any shop is lying vacant. The Prescribed Authority has considered the said aspect and did not find any force in the same.

¶11

In the opinion of the Court, the findings recorded by the courts below are pure findings of fact and do not warrant interference in exercise of power under the writ jurisdiction.

¶12

Counsel for the petitioner, at this stage prayed for some reasonable time being granted to vacate. The parties agreed that the petitioner would continue in the disputed shop for a period of nine months subject to furnishing of undertaking.

¶13

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. However, it is provided that in case the petitioner furnishes an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority within three weeks from today, that he will handover vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondent-landlord on or before the expiry of nine months from today and shall not induct any third person in the shop in dispute and also pays rent/damages for the period of nine months at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month in advance within the same period, he shall be permitted to remain in possession of the disputed shop for a period of nine months. In case of default of any of the above conditions, the protection granted hereby shall stand automatically vacated and the respondent-landlord shall become entitled to execute the release order.

¶14

(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 17.1.2019

¶16

skv

Mohd. Umer v. Afsar Ali

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Umer v. Afsar Ali

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

Smt. Moona Begum Dead and Others Vs Liyaquat Ali and Others

Shiv Kumar Vs Prahlad and Another

Raj Kumar Saini and 3 Others Vs Furquan Ali

Ashok Kumar Vs Rent Control and Eviction Officer and Others

Javed Ali Vs Ahmad Urooz

Brijendra Kumar Agarwal Vs Ram Kumar