Asad Umar Rahman and 4 Others Vs the Learned Addl. District Judge CT.NO.-11 Lucknow and 2 Ors. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Asad Umar Rahman and 4 Others Vs the Learned Addl. District Judge CT.NO.-11 Lucknow and 2 Ors. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both writ petitions allowed: appellate order dated 30.05.2014 quashed; prescribed authority's release order dated 15.09.2012 upheld; opposite parties directed to vacate the premises within four months.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellate authority rightly set aside the prescribed authority's release order solely for want of a duly executed contract for a petrol pump outlet, notwithstanding the finding that the landlord's third son was unemployed, and whether the appellate order should be quashed and the release order restored.

Court's answer

The appellate court's reasoning that no duly executed contract was ever placed on record is ill-founded, firstly because there was no consideration by the appellate authority of the finding of fact that the third son of the landlord was unemployed.

Ratio / Principle

Establishment of the petroleum product retail outlet was only one of the measures by which the landlord's son could have established himself; even in the absence of any contract, once it is established that the son of the landlord was unemployed, the conditions for release were satisfied, and the order passed by the appellate court cannot be upheld and is quashed.

Key takeaways

The order passed by the prescribed authority on 15.09.2012 is upheld, and the opposite parties are directed to vacate the premises within four months.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rent Control - Release application - U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, S. 21(1)(a) - Landlords sought release of tenanted premises pleading that their third son, who had completed Civil Engineering and MA and was married, was unemployed and required the premises to establish himself, including through a prospective petrol pump outlet for which the landlord had applied and been called for interview. Prescribed authority allowed release on 15.09.2012, holding the need bona fide and genuine. Appellate authority (Learned Addl. District Judge, Court No. 11, Lucknow) allowed the tenant's appeal by order dated 30.05.2014, holding the need unestablished because no duly executed contract for the petrol pump was placed on record. Held (Pankaj Bhatia, J.): the appellate reasoning was ill-founded - it made no consideration of the factual finding that the landlord's third son was unemployed; the petroleum retail outlet was only one measure by which the son could establish himself, and once his unemployment stood established, the conditions for release were satisfied even in the absence of any contract. Appellate order quashed; prescribed authority's order dated 15.09.2012 upheld; opposite parties directed to vacate the premises within four months. Both writ petitions allowed.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25620

Court No. - 6

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1000132 of 2014

Petitioner :- Asad Umar Rahman And 4 Others Respondent :- The Learned Addl. District Judge Ct.No.-11 Lucknow And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Srivastava,Kabir Ahmad Khan Counsel for Respondent :- U.N. Mishra, Ravi Shanker Tiwari

AND

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1000133 of 2014

Petitioner :- Asad Umar Rahman And 4 Others Respondent :- The Learned Addl. District Judge Ct.No.-11 Lucknow And 2 Ors.

Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Srivastava, Kabir Ahmad Khan Counsel for Respondent :- U.N. Mishra, Ravi Shanker Tiwari

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

A request has been made on behalf of the respondents to pass over the matter as the counsel is unwell, however, considering the fact that the petitions are of the year 2014, I do not see any reason to adjourn the matter and the same are being decided based upon the material available on record.

As both the petitions are filed by the same petitioners and arise out of the same orders, the same are being decided by means of this common order.

Heard the counsel for the petitioner.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated 30.05.2014 passed by the appellate authority whereby the appeal preferred by the tenant was allowed and the release application which was allowed by the prescribed authority vide order dated 15.09.2012 was set aside.

The facts, as emerge from the petition, are that the petitioners landlord moved an application under section 21(1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 seeking release of the property in question on the ground that the third son of the petitioner had completed his Civil Engineering and MA and was unemployed and his marriage has also been solemnized, as such, the premises in question was required for establishing him. It was further stated that he had applied for grant of Petrol Pump and was called for interview also, as such, the property in question was required. The prescribed authority, after considering the

evidence and the material as placed, allowed the release application holding that the property in question was required bonafide and the need as setup was genuine. The said order of the prescribed authority was challenged in an appeal. At the time of the hearing of the appeal, it was pleaded that the Petrol Pump which was sought to be established was never sanctioned by the Petroleum Company. The appellate court, impressed upon the said argument, held that no document was placed on record to establish that a contract was executed in favour of the son of the landlord for running the Petrol Pump, as such, the need setup could not be established and the appeal was allowed.

Challenging the said judgment, the counsel for the petitioners argues that in the need setup, it was stated that the third son of the landlord was unemployed and wanted to setup a business for which efforts were being made to setup a Petrol Pump Outlet. It was pleaded that one of the conditions was that the applicant should have a property on lease or ownership for more than thirty years. He argues that the appellate court in recording that no contract was placed on record as the contract could never have been executed as the petitioner could not establish the vacant and peaceful possession of the area required for setting up the Petrol Pump outlet as the same was in occupation of the tenant. It is further argued that from the pleadings it was clear that the son of the landlord was unemployed which fact has not been upset in the appellate order.

Considering the reasoning recorded in the appellate order that a duly executed contract was never placed on record, the same is ill-founded for more that one reason, firstly that there is no consideration by the appellate authority on the finding of fact that third son of the landlord was unemployed. The establishment of the petroleum product retail outlet was only as one of the measures which, the son of the landlord could have taken to establish himself. Even in the absence of any contract, once it is established that the son of the landlord was unemployed, the conditions for release were satisfied, as such, the order passed by the appellate court cannot be upheld and the same is quashed. The order passed by the prescribed authority on 15.09.2012 is upheld. The opposite parties are directed to vacate the premises within a period of four months from today.

Both the writ petition stand allowed.

Order Date :- 2.5.2025 VNP/-

Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench