Budaun Kendriya Upbhokta Shakari Bhandar Budaun… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2020)

Budaun Kendriya Upbhokta Shakari Bhandar Budaun… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2020)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings initiated by the landlord could lawfully be drawn against the tenant-petitioner under Section 21(8) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, given the contention that the demised premises were used purely for residential purposes with no commercial activity in the vicinity. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

The Courts below having recorded concurrent findings of fact, this Court would not be justified in interfering with them in writ jurisdiction unless the findings are shown perverse or contrary to record resulting in grave injustice to the petitioner.

Key takeaways

The Appellate Authority framed four points, dealt with and discussed each and every point in detail, and consequently rejected the appeal on its merit.ratio¶9
After considering the submissions and the record, the Court found no justification warranting interference with the orders impugned in the writ petition.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition by tenant (Budaun Kendriya Upbhokta Shakari Bhandar Budaun) against concurrent orders in proceedings under Section 21(8) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972: the order dated 09.9.2010 of the Prescribed Authority/Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Budaun in Case No.04 of 2002, and the judgement dated 5.10.2019 of the Additional District Judge, Court No.6, Budaun in Rent Appeal No.50 of 2010 rejecting the tenant's appeal. Tenant's contention was that it merely ran its office from the ground floor, the premises were used purely for residential purposes with no commercial activity in the vicinity, and its preliminary objection rejected on 05.9.2002 ought to have been upheld. Held: the Courts below recorded concurrent findings of fact; counsel could point to no manifest error apparent on the face of record; absent perversity or grave injustice, interference under Article 226 was unwarranted; the Appellate Authority had dealt with all four points and rejected the appeal on merits. Writ petition dismissed (Order Date 7.12.2020, Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.).

Court No. - 71

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9009 of 2020 Petitioner :- Budaun Kendriya Upbhokta Shakari Bhandar Budaun Respondent :- Bipin Kumar Kukreja Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Sahai Counsel for Respondent :- Preet Pal Singh Rathore

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

Heard Shri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the tenantpetitioner and Shri P.P. Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the landlord-respondent.

Budaun Kendriya Upbhokta Shakari Bhandar Budaun is before this Court assailing the judgement and order dated 5.10.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.6, Budaun in Rent Appeal No.50 of 2010 (Budaun Kendriya Upbhokta Shakari Bhandar Budaun vs. Bipin Kumar Kukreja) as well as the judgement and order dated 09.9.2010 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Budaun in Case No.04 of 2002 (Bipin Kumar Kukreja vs. Budaun Kendriya Upbhokta Shakari Bhandar Budaun).

As it has been pressed on behalf of landlord-respondent that the present proceedings could not have been drawn against the petitioner under Section 21 (8) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 and as such, the Prescribed Authority committed a manifest error in rejecting the preliminary objection of the petitioner on 05.9.2002. The authorities below failed to consider the fact that the tenant-petitioner was merely running its office from the ground floor of the demised premises and the above floor was being used purely for residential purpose. There was no commercial activity even in the immediate vicinity of the premises in question and as such, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

Per contra, Shri P.P. Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the landlord-respondent has vehemently opposed the writ petition and submits that both the authorities below have rightly proceeded in the matter. Each and every objection, which has been pressed before this Court, has been dealt with by both the authorities below. There is no infirmity or illegality in the same and the same are liable to be upheld by this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any manifest error apparent on the face of record in the impugned orders so as to justify interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Both

the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact and unless these findings are shown perverse or contrary to record resulting in grave injustice to petitioner in writ jurisdiction, this Court would not be justified in interfering with the same. The Appellate Authority has also proceeded to frame four points and each and every point has been dealt with and discussed in detail and consequently the appeal has been rejected on its merit.

After considering the submission advanced by the parties and perusal of the record, I find no justification warranting interference with the orders impugned in this writ petition.

The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 7.12.2020 RKP