HC: Once tenancy is accepted a tenant cannot withdraw from it & approach Court against it [Read Order]

The Allahabad High Court while dealing with the matter related to Uttar Pradesh (Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act), 1972 has held that once the tenancy is accepted, tenant cannot withdraw from it, he cannot later raise issue before the High Court that the actual tenant is someone else therefore the release order is not maintainable by him.

This above decision was given by Justice Neeraj Tiwari while dismissing the petition of Prakash Chandra of Naughara Kanpur Nagar. The writ petition was filed by Prakash Chandra wherein he challenged the order of Prescribed Authority and the orders of the Additional District Judge Kanpur Nagar. In both orders, the petitioner was ordered to vacate the rental shop in question within 60 days.

The petitioner contended that the shop was rented by his grandfather in 1960. After this his father received it as an inheritance. Her father is still alive, so the order to vacate the shop in question against the petitioner cannot be passed. The petitioner said that although he did not raise this point before the prescribed authority and the appellate court, he can raise it at any time and before any court. The court did not accept the plea to the petitioner. The above contentions of the petitioner have rejected by the court.

The court said that the petitioner had contested the case in two courts as a tenant and now he could not say that he was not a tenant. The court rejected the petitioner's contention that the subordinate courts had erred in assessing the tenant and landlord's comparable problem.

"The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is also not acceptable that he has raised the issue in the written statement that tenancy is continued from 1960, which has not denied by landlord-respondent in light of Section 58 of Evidence Act. Once the tenancy is accepted, there was no need to landlord to deny the same as the facts admitted need not be proved."

The court said that it was proved that the petitioner made no attempt to find an alternative location for the shop. Landlord Ritesh Bhargava has stated the need for a shop to expand his business which seems to be right. The court has placed reliance on various judgments of Apex court as well as this court also and rejected the petition and gave the petitioner time till November to vacate the shop in question.

Case details:

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20793 of 2019

Petitioner :- Prakash Chandra

Respondent :- Sri Ritesh Bhargawa

Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Srivastava,Deepak Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- Krishna Mohan Garg

Bench: Justice Neeraj Tiwari
Read Judgement @LatestLaws