Allahabad High Court
Praveen Kumar Jain vs Kamal Gupta on 5 December, 2018
Bench: Siddhartha Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
A.F.R.
Court No. - 37
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21585 of 2018
Petitioner :- Praveen Kumar Jain
Respondent :- Kamal Gupta
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Sahai
Counsel for Respondent :- Kartikeya Saran
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
This writ petition has been filed for the quashing of the judgement and order dated 3.8.2017 passed by the Prescribed Authority in P.A. Case No. 80 of 2012 (Kamal Gupta vs. Praveen Kumar Jain) and for the quashing of the order dated 31.8.2018 passed by the VIIIth Additional District Judge, Meerut, in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 158 of 2017 (Praveen Kumar Jain vs. Kamal Gupta).
The respondent landlord had filed a Release Application for getting the shop no. 74 (part of old building no. 726) P.L. Sharma Road, Meerut City, released stating that the shop was bonafidely required for settling his son Sri Sanjeev Kumar Gupta as a Chartered Accountant (C.A.). He stated that he had also filed a Release Application for getting the shop no. 73 P.L. Sharma Road, released with an idea that the shop no. 73 and 74 could be joined and his son Sri Sanjeev Kumar Gupta could start his practice of a Chartered Accountant from the two shops. Further case of the applicant in the Release Application was that the son of the landlord was married and had two children. Since the son of the petitioner landlord had no place for practising accountancy, the release of the shop was essential. The tenant-petitioner had contested the Release Application and had stated amongst various other things that the landlord did not require the shop bonafidely. The son was not practising as a Chartered Accountant and it was alleged that he was not even trained as a Chartered Accountant and that he was running a furniture business alongwith his father, the landlord. Further allegation was that the landlord had other accommodations where he could have settled his son. Further the petitioner had also submitted that he had been doing his business of Parag Milk Parlour and was earning his livelihood from the shop in question and if he vacated the shop the hardship he would be facing would be much greater than the hardship the landlord was facing.
The Prescribed Authority dealt with the question of bonafide need and comparative hardship and found that the shop in question was bonafidely required by the landlord and that the comparative hardship because of the staying of the tenant was greater to the landlord. The petitioner filed an appeal which again was dismissed. Hence the instant writ petition.
Learned counsel made his oral submissions and also submitted his written arguments. Learned counsel submitted that the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was a beneficial legislation which was enacted for the protection of the tenant and every provision of it had to be interpreted in such a manner so as to protect the tenant from any unscrupulous/rapacious landlord. In this regard, the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the following decisions:- 2000 (1) RCR 484 (SC) : Liaq Ahmed and Others vs. Shri Habeeb-Ur-Rehman, 2001 (2) RCR 323 :(Laxmidas Bapudas Darbar vs. Smt. Rudravva), 1994 (1) RCR 329 (SC): (Gopal Chandra Ghosh vs. Smt. Renu Bala Majumdar).
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the bonafide need of a landlord was not a mere desire or only a pretext to evict the tenant. In this regard, learned counsel relied upon 2005 (1) RCR 284 : Adil Jamshed Frenchman (D) by Lrs. vs. Sardar Dastur Schools Trust & Ors.
Learned counsel further submitted that when the petitioner had other accommodations where he could have settled his son as a Charted Accountant then there was no requirement to evict the tenant of the shop in question. In this regard, learned counsel relied upon 1980 Allahabad Rent Cases 134 : Sri Ramesh Ji Nigam and others v. The District Judge, Kanpur and others.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in the end submitted that the decision reported in 2012 (30) LCD 1746 (Mohammad Islam vs. Additional District Judge and Others) was not applicable in the present case and, therefore, should not have been relied upon by the Courts below.
In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent/landlord who did not file any counter affidavit but did submit his written submissions argued stated that the alternative accommodation which the tenant was suggesting was not suitable for a professional to start his office of a Chartered Accountant. He further submitted that as had been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Akhileshwar Kumar and Ors. vs. Mustaqim : (2003 SC 532); AIR 2016 SC 5258 : (Bhupinder Singh Bawa vs. Asha Devi) when a landlord makes a choice as to which accommodation he requires then it is the subjective choice of the landlord to get the shop vacated. Neither the tenant nor the Court can thrust upon the landlord its own choice as to which shop the landlord should get vacated.
Learned counsel also relied upon AIR 1999 SC 100: Sarla Ahuja vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd; AIR 2014 SC 2294 : Anil Bajaj & Anr. v. Vinod Ahuja and submitted that it was not for the tenant to dictate as to how the landlord had to settle himself and his family and, therefore, the Court or the tenant should refrain from making suggestions to settle the landlord in a way different from which he was wanting to settle.
Learned counsel for the landlord also relied upon AIR 1999 SC 3864 : (Raghunath G. Panhale (dead) by Lrs. v. M/s Chaganlal Sundarji and Co.) and submitted that while seeing if the landlord required the premises bonafidely it had not to be seen that there was a dire need. A need for landlord to either settle himself or his family properly itself was a bonafide need.
Learned counsel for the landlord further submitted that this Court should not substitute its own findings after setting aside the findings of the Courts below regarding bonafide need and comparative hardship unless and until there was a palpable perversity in the orders. He further submitted that the son of the landlord was a married individual who required the shop in question bonafidely for settling himself.
Learned counsel for the landlord further submitted that since the petitioner tenant did not make any efforts to search out for an alternative accommodation, the court below correctly came to the conclusion that there was no hardship to the tenant if he vacated the premises in question.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and after having gone through the written submissions, I find that the landlords need could have been fulfilled by the two shops, namely, shop no. 73 and 74 P.L. Sharma Road, Meerut City. The landlord was the sole person who could have taken a decision as to which shop would fulfil his needs and the needs of his family. Definitely, the tenant or for that matter even the Court could not guide the landlord as to which accommodation he should use to fulfil his needs and which accommodation he should not use. The son of the landlord was a qualified Charted Accountant. If he required the two shops to practice and they were good enough for setting up the practice of the Chartered Accountancy then it did not lie of the mouth of the tenant to suggest that the landlord should settle his son in some other shop. I, therefore, find that the shop in question was bonafidely required by the landlord. The finding arrived at by the Court below regarding comparative hardship also cannot be interfered with.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.12.2018
praveen.
