Tenant filed writ petition to quash orders dismissing appeals in a landlord-tenant dispute. Court found no perversity in lower courts' findings on comparative hardship and bona fide need of landlords.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 39401 of 2010
Petitioner :- Gauri Shankar Respondent :- Smt. Kalawati And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nirvikar Gupta,Smt. Rama Goel Bansal Counsel for Respondent :- B.P. Verma,Rahul Sahai
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Smt. Rama Goel Bansal, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner and Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents.
This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief:
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction, including a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned judgment and order dated 27.7.2009 passed by Prescribed authority, Mathura in P.A. Case No.22 of 2007, Smt. Kalawati and others Vs. Gauri Shanker Agarwal, and also quash the judgment and order dated 5.6.2010 dismissing P.A. Appeal No.17 of 2009, Gauri Shanker Agarwal Vs. Smt. Kalawati and others (Annexures-1A and 1B)."
Undisputedly, the plaintiff-respondent is the owner and landlord of the disputed shop of which the petitioner is a tenant. The plaintiff-respondent filed P.A. Case No.22 of 2007 (Smt. Kalawati v. Gauri Shanker), which was decreed by the impugned judgment dated 27.7.2009.
Aggrieved with this judgment, the defendant-tenant/petitioner filed P.A. Appeal No.17 of 2009, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 5.6.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge (Court No.5), Mathura.
Aggrieved with these two judgments, the present writ petition has been filed.
Both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact based on consideration of relevant evidences on record, that the plaintiffsrespondents are in bonafide need of the disputed shop and the comparative hardship is in their favour. The detail discussion in this regard has been made by the appellate court in Paragraph Nos.10 to 18 of the impugned judgment dated 5.6.2010.
Learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner even on being asked could not point out any perversity in the findings of fact recorded by the courts below. Under the circumstances, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the findings of fact.
For all the reasons aforestated, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed .
Order Date :- 15.11.2019 Ak/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the concurrent findings of fact made by the courts below regarding comparative hardship and bona fide need in an eviction dispute.
Gauri Shankar
Smt. Kalawati
Surya Prakash Kesarwani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
