Allahabad High Court
Arun Prakash Singhal vs Smt. Kusum Jaiswal on 8 July, 2019
Bench: Surya Prakash Kesarwani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 05
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9685 of 2019
Petitioner :- Arun Prakash Singhal
Respondent :- Smt. Kusum Jaiswal
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Mohan Srivastava
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
1. Heard Sri Ashish Mohan Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that respondent-landlady filed Rent Case No.01 of 2016 for release of the shop under tenancy of the petitioner, on the ground of bona fide need for business of her grandson, namely Sri Vipin Jaiswal who is stated to be unemployed. After exchange of pleadings and evidences, the aforesaid Rent Case No.01 of 2016 was allowed by the impugned judgment dated 04.12.2017 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Anoop Shahar, Bulandshahar.
3. Aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment, the tenant petitioner filed Rent Control Appeal No.01 of 2018 (Arund Prakash Singhal vs. Smt. Kusum Jaiswal), which has been dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 11.03.2019 passed by the Additional District Judge, Anoop Shahar, Bulandshahar. Aggrieved with these two judgments and orders, the tenant-petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits as under:
(i) the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Court have completely failed to record any finding on the evidences being affidavit of the tenant-petitioner dated 28.09.2016 in which he has specifically stated in paragraph-7 that the shop Nos.819, 821 and 822 situate in Mohalla Mahadev Debai, Bulandshahar, are not in his possession. In paragraph-14 of the affidavit, it was specifically stated that the tenant-petitioner opens the shop daily and it is not closed and it is his only source of income.
(ii) The court below has also not considered the fact that the respondent landlady has five vacant shops in the same premises.
(iii) While passing the impugned judgments and orders, the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Court has not considered the provisions of Rule 16(2)(c) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972.
5. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this court in Santosh Kumar Sharma vs. Additional District Judge, 2006 ARC (1) 397
6. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner.
7. The Prescribed Authority in Rent Case No.01 of 2015 and the Appellate Court in Rent Control Appeal No.01 of 2018 have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the respondent-landlady is in bona fide need of the disputed shop and comparative hardship is in her favour. A finding of fact has also been recorded that although the tenant-petitioner has alleged that he is carrying on business of ready-made garments in the disputed shop but in support, no evidence has been filed by him. The respondent-landlady took a clear stand that the tenant-petitioner is not carrying on any business in the disputed shop and he keeps it close. Thus, the tenant-petitioner could not establish that he is carrying on business from the disputed shop.
8. Apart from above, the respondent-landlady in her affidavit stated that the tenant-petitioner is in possession of four vacant shops No.819, 820, 821 and 830/4 situate in Mohalla Mahadev. In support, she also filed certified copy of relevant Tax Assessment Register of Nagarpalika Parishad, Debai for the period from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2015. The tenant-petitioner could not file evidence to rebut the aforesaid evidence and instead in paragraphs 7 and 8 of his affidavit dated 28.09.2016, stated that those shops are of Dharmshala of which he and his brother Santosh are Managers and the endorsement in the Tax Assessment Register has been wrongly made. The tenant-petitioner could neither establish by any documentary evidence that he is not in possession of the aforesaid shops and the Tax Assessment Record of Nagar Palika is incorrect nor he could establish that the landlady has any other suitable vacant shop to satisfy her bona fide need.
9. The respondent-landlady has established her bona fide need for the disputed shop. The Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Court have recorded concurrent findings of fact on the point of bona fide need of the respondent-landlady for the disputed shop and comparative hardship to be in her favour. These are findings of fact based on consideration of relevant evidences on record which cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this petition.
11. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 08.07.2019
NLY
