Partly allowed

Mohd. Mobeen v. Imtiyaz Arif

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2019WRIA/808/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged eviction orders under the U.P. Rent Control Act. The High Court upheld eviction on grounds of landlord's bona fide need but modified the order, directing the landlord to pay two years rent as compensation before the eviction order becomes executable.

What did the court decide?

Eviction order modified; landlord directed to pay two years rent as compensation before it becomes executable.

Mohd. Mobeen Vs Imtiyaz Arif — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 19

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 808 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Mohd. Mobeen Respondent :- Imtiyaz Arif Counsel for Petitioner :- Amrendra Pratap Singh,Subhendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- M. Sirajul Haq

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed challenging the order of eviction passed by Prescribed Authority dated 22.11.2011 and the judgment and order dated 22.11.2018 passed by the Appellate Court dismissing the appeal.

¶6

The proceeding arises out of a release application filed by the respondent-landlord under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for release of a room measuring 8' X 10' in possession of the petitioner as tenant. The petitioner was doing business of fabricating cooler bodies and steel trunks and boxes from the said room. The respondent-landlord claimed that he has a family of ten members. He is earning his livelihood by stitching soles of slippers, from which he is hardly able to get Rs. 1500/per month, which was wholly insufficient to sustain the family. Consequently, the shop was required by him for starting a general merchandise business along with his sons, who were also alleged to be unemployed. The release application was contested by the petitioner alleging that he also has a big family and that the need of the landlord was not bona fide. The Prescribed Authority found the need of the landlord to be bona fide and genuine and also held that in case, the premises in dispute is not released in favour of the landlord, he would suffer greater hardship. The Appellate Court has endorsed the findings returned by the Prescribed Authority.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue

¶8

relating to comparative hardship was decided by the Courts below against the petitioner on the sole ground that he did not made effort to find out alternative accommodation. He submitted that the same cannot be made sole ground for holding that comparative hardship is in favour of the landlord.

¶9

As already noted above, the need of the landlord for starting general merchandise business along with his unemployed sons was found to be genuine and bona fide. While deciding the issue relating to comparative hardship, the Prescribed Authority has observed that despite the fact that release application was pending since the year 2008, the petitioner did not made any effort to find out alternative accommodation. For coming to such conclusion, it has placed reliance upon judgments of this Court reported in 2005 (1) ARC 243 - Kripa Shankar and others Versus V ADJ and others and 2005(2) ARC 858, - Kedar Nath Versus III ADJ. This Court does not find any illegality in the view taken in this regard. However, since the premises was let out for non-residential purposes, therefore, in the opinion of the Court the Prescribed Authority should have awarded two years rent as compensation to the petitioner, as provided under the second Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 21.

¶10

Counsel for the parties are ad-idem in stating before this Court that rent of the shop was Rs. 475/- per month. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord undertakes to pay two years rent as compensation calculated at the above rate.

¶11

Accordingly, it is hereby provided that the petitioner shall be paid two years rent as compensation by the respondent-landlord within four weeks from today. The release order would become executable only after compensation is paid by the respondentlandlord to the petitioner, as directed above. The impugned orders stand modified to the extent indicated above.

¶12

Sri M. Sirajul Haq, counsel for the respondent-landlord states that the respondent-landlord would deposit two years rent as compensation, as directed above, before the Executing Court. It is further provided that the amount so deposited would be released in favour of the petitioner without any security. The release order would be executed only, after the amount, as directed above, is deposited before the Executing Court.

¶13

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶14

(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 18.1.2019 AM/-

Mohd. Mobeen v. Imtiyaz Arif

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Mobeen v. Imtiyaz Arif

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Vs Rent Control and Eviction Officer and Others

Javed Ali Vs Ahmad Urooz

Brijendra Kumar Agarwal Vs Ram Kumar

Rajendra Kumar Gupta and Others Vs Smt. Shaila Devi and Others

Mohd. Ali Vs Mohd. Noor Khan

Mohan and 2 Others Vs B.N. Public School and 2 Ors.