Allowed

Smt. Mamta Jain and 4 Others v. Kamta Prasad (Since Deceased) and 8 Others

Allahabad HC25 Apr 2019WRIA/6371/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an eviction order and affirmed rent appeal findings. The court dismissed the petition for lack of merit but granted two months' time for vacating premises upon undertaking and rent deposit.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; petitioners granted two months' time to vacate premises conditioned upon undertaking and rent deposit.

Smt. Mamta Jain and 4 Others Vs Kamta Prasad… — Execution and Attachment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 58

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6371 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Mamta Jain And 4 Others Respondent :- Kamta Prasad (Since Deceased) And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sukrampal Counsel for Respondent :- Pramod Jain

¶4

Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sukrampal Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Pramod Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶6

The present petition seeks to challenge the order dated 23.09.2017 passed by the Small Cause Judge/Civil Judge (Senior Division) Baghpat in P.A. Case No. 01 of 2014 (Kamta Prasad and others vs. Smt. Mamta Jain and others), whereby the application filed by the plaintiff-respondents under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was allowed and a direction was issued for eviction of the defendant-petitioners from the shop in question within 30 days and hand over the possession of the same to the plaintiff-respondents. Petitioners also seek to challenge the order dated 26.03.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge/F.T.C. No.1, Baghpat in Rent Appeal No. 29 of 2016, whereby the order passed by the Prescribed Authority has been affirmed.

¶7

Concurrent findings of fact have been returned by the courts below on the question of bonafide need and comparative hardship on the basis of the facts and pleadings of the case, and appreciation of evidence on record.The courts below have taken into consideration the need set up by the plaintiff-landlord for setting up the independent business of his son who was unemployed, as also the fact that the defendeant-tenent was running a business of petro lubricants at a separate site. Accordingly, it has been held that the need set up by plaintifflandlord was bonafide. Based on the aforementioned findings regarding bonafide need, the issue of comparative hardship has also been decided in favour of the plaintiff-landlord.

¶8

The grounds which are sought to be canvassed by the petitioner seeking to assail the findings with regard to bonafide need and comparative hardship are all factual in nature, which have been dealt with at length by the courts below, and findings of fact have been returned on the basis of the evidence on record.

¶9

Counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any

¶10

material error or illegality in the orders passed by the courts below.

¶11

Petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.

¶12

At this stage, the counsel for the petitioners prayed that some time may be granted to the petitioners to vacate the demised premises.

¶13

Counsel for the respondents has no objection to the prayer so made.

¶14

As jointly agreed, the petitioners are granted two months' time to vacate the demised premises provided that they furnish an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority, within two weeks from today, that they would vacate the demised premises within two months from today. The petitioners shall deposit rent/damages at the agreed rate for two months period within two weeks from today as agreed by counsel for the parties. In case of default of any of the above conditions, the protection granted shall stand vacated and it would be open to the respondent-landlord to enforce the eviction order.

¶15

Order Date :- 25.4.2019 Imroz

¶16

[Dr. Y. K. Srivastava, J.]

Smt. Mamta Jain and 4 Others v. Kamta Prasad (Since Deceased) and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mamta Jain and 4 Others v. Kamta Prasad (Since Deceased) and 8 Others

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. Anjali Guha Vs Shree Shyam Mandal Trust Varanasi

Harish Chandra Vs Union of India and 5 Others

Anil Kumar Gupta Vs Bhola Nath and Another

Sri Lilanand Thakur Pagal Baba Trust, Vrindavan, Mathura Vs Smt. Mithilesh Kumari Dubey

Rajesh Kumar Tiwari Vs Barnch Manager Alahabad U.P. Gramin Bank Jalaun and Another

Liaquat Husain Khan Vs Muhammad Umar