Dismissed

Reeta Malhotra and 2 Others v. Addl. District Judge Court No. 04, Gonda and 9 Others

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2024WRIA/3450/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order that allowed a landlord's eviction appeal under the U.P. Rent Control Act. The court held that the appellate authority's findings on bonafide need and comparative hardship were based on evidence and did not warrant interference. The petition was also rendered infructuous as the premises were already surrendered.

What the court decided

AI extract

Reeta Malhotra and 2 Others Vs Addl. District Judge… — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:83887

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3450 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Reeta Malhotra And 2 Others Respondent :- Addl. District Judge Court No. 04, Gonda And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Neeraj Kumar Rai,Abhinav Bhattacharya,Shachindra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Faiz Ahmad Khan,Mohammad Aslam Khan

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mohammad Aslam Khan, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord and perused the record.

¶7

The present petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are the tenant, challenging the order dated 20.03.2024 whereby the appeal preferred by the landlord was allowed.

¶8

The facts, in brief, are that the respondents, who are the landlord, filed an application under Section 21(1) of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972 seeking eviction of the petitioners from the tenanted accommodation on the ground of bonafide need. In the said proceedings, a defence was taken that other shops are also vacant and as the petitioners are enjoying a lot of goodwill, the landlord should apply for release of the other shop, which contention of the petitioners-tenant was accepted and the release application was rejected. Against the said rejection order, the landlord preferred an appeal before the said appellate authority also, the petitioners had pleaded the same thing, however, the appellate authority without considering the said has allowed the appeal.

¶9

The contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that the appellate authority ought to have taken into consideration, the goodwill enjoyed by the petitioners on the shop in question and should have also considered the fact that other shops were available or being vacated for the use of the

¶10

landlord, which has not been considered, thus, according to them, the appellate order is bad in law.

¶11

Sri M.A. Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-landlord states that the tenanted accommodation has already been handed over to the landlord in the year 2022 and thus to that extent, the present writ petition is rendered infructuous. He further argues that the tenant can not dictate the landlord as to which shop he should seek for release for his personal needs. He thus argues that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶12

Perusal of the appellate order reveals that the appellate order had framed two issues, first being bonafide need in which, the appellate authority had considered the need set up was that of the sons of the landlord, which was found to be genuine. On the question of comparative hardship, the appellate Court held that during the pendency of the proceedings, no effort was made by the tenant to search for alternative premises, which fact had to be considered against the tenant. The appellate Court also considered the contention of the tenant that he had earned substantial goodwill and repelled the same by arguing that merely because of transferring of the shop to another premises would not effect the goodwill. Based upon the said, the appeal came to be allowed.

¶13

Considering the findings of fact recorded which are based upon the evidence, no interference is called for in the present writ petition. The writ petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 13.12.2024/Arun

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Reeta Malhotra and 2 Others v. Addl. District Judge Court No. 04, Gonda and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Reeta Malhotra and 2 Others v. Addl. District Judge Court No. 04, Gonda and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bajan Kaur and 2 Ors. U/A-227 Vs Special/Additional District Judge Kheri and Others

Smt. Reeta Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secy. Food and Supply Lko. and Others

Guddu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Ors.

Mani Ram and 3 Ors. Vs Ram Achal and 4 Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Gaur Vs State of U.P Thru. Spl. Secy./ Prescribed Officer, Abkari Anubhag and Others

U.P.Awas Evam Vikas Parishad Thru.Housing Commissioner Vs Geet Kaushal