Sanjay Nigam Vs Smt. Ram Dulari and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sanjay Nigam Vs Smt. Ram Dulari and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition dismissed. Petitioner granted one year's time to vacate and to hand over vacant and physical possession of the shop to the landlord on or before 30th April, 2026, subject to filing an undertaking by affidavit within 15 days; arrears of rent, if any, to be deposited within one month; on failure to file the undertaking, the respondent-landlord is at liberty to execute the decree in accordance with law within four months.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned orders (release order dated 31.03.2018 and appellate order dated 13.02.2025 dismissing the Rent Appeal) should be quashed on account of the alleged subsequent development that the landlord let out another premises to a third party instead of settling his son therein. +1 more

Court's answer

The alleged giving of the second shop to another tenant was not established through any evidence; the plea of subsequent development therefore did not warrant interference.

Ratio / Principle

Findings of fact that the landlord had a bona fide need for the shop for setting up his son's business had been pleaded and established; consequently no interference with the impugned orders is called for.

Key takeaways

The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Pankaj Bhatia, J.; WRIT - A No. 4741 of 2025; decided 9.5.2025): Tenant's writ petition against the release order dated 31.03.2018 passed under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 and the order dated 13.02.2025 dismissing his Rent Appeal dismissed. Held that the allegation that the landlord, after obtaining another premises from a tenant, re-let it instead of settling his son was not established through any evidence; the findings of fact on the landlord's bona fide need for the shop to set up his son's business having been pleaded and established, no interference was called for. Petitioner granted one year's time to vacate, handing over vacant physical possession on or before 30th April, 2026, subject to an undertaking by affidavit within 15 days and deposit of rent arrears, if any, within one month; failing the undertaking, the landlord may execute the decree within four months.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:27313

Court No. - 6

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4741 of 2025

Petitioner :- Sanjay Nigam Respondent :- Smt. Ram Dulari And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Purusottam Awasthi,Avinash Upadhyay

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Purusottam Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondents.

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 31.03.2018, whereby the application of the land lord for release of the shop was allowed as well as the order dated 13.02.2025, whereby the Rent Appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed.

The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was a tenant in the premises owned by the respondent. An application was filed under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 seeking release of the shop for setting up one of his sons, who was working as contractor and wanted the shop in question for setting up his own business. The shop was released by an order passed by the prescribed authority on 31.03.2018. Challenging the said order, an appeal was preferred. During the pendency of the appeal, an application was filed that the land lord had two premises and after getting one of the premises in occupation of some other tenant, instead of setting up his son, the same was given on rent to some one else.

In the light of the said, it is argued that the impugned orders suffer from non-consideration of the said fact in the form of the subsequent development, as such, the petition should be entertained and the impugned orders should be quashed.

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that two petitions were filed for release of the premises for the two unemployed sons of the land lord and the shop in question, which is alleged to have been given to some other tenant was to be used for the second son of the land lord and not the son for which, the shop in occupation of the petitioner was sought to be vacated. It is further argued that in the application, it was specifically stated that the son of the land lord was going for construction work and did not have any shop to run his business, which was not denied.

Irrespective of the fact that the second shop was given, as alleged, but not established through any evidence. As findings of fact with regard to the bona fide need for setting up business of the son of the land lord had been pleaded and established, no interference is called for.

Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed .

As the petitioner is in occupation of the shop since long, he is granted one year's time to vacate the shop in question. The petitioner shall hand over the vacant and physical possession of the shop to the land lord on or before 30th April, 2026, subject to the petitioner filing an undertaking within a period of 15 days from today in the form an affidavit, undertaking to handover the physical and vacant possession of the shop in question to the land lord and to no one else on or before 30th April, 2026. The arrears of rent, if any, shall also be deposited within a period of one month from today.

In the event of failure to file the undertaking as recorded above, the respondent-land lord would be at liberty to execute the decree in accordance with law, within a period of four months from today.

Order Date :- 9.5.2025 Ashutosh

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench