Dhiraj Govil vs Mohit Bhargav And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 9934 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Reserved On :3.3.2023
 
Delivered On :5.4.2023
 
Court No. - 18
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2252 of 2016
 

 
Petitioner :- Dhiraj Govil
 
Respondent :- Mohit Bhargav And Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prakash Chandra Gupta,Vishal Khandelwal
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Amit Kumar Gaur,Jitendra Pal Singh Jadaun,Karmendra Kumar,Navin Kumar Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

1. Heard Mr. Vishal Khandelwal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Mr. Navin Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents states that he has no instruction in the matter at present.

3. No other counsel has appeared for the contesting respondents.

4. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner got his share at two places one at ancestral house situated in Navalpura and second situated in Laxmanganj (kakrala). In ancestral house 1/2 share towards east direction has been given to the petitioner and his brother Pawan Kant, while rest of the 1/2 share has been given in the share of Parmeshwari Dayal (Tau of petitioner). The disputed shop shown by letter ABCD is the part of the share in his house given to the petitioner and his brother situated in eastern side. The first floor is being used by the petitioner and his brother as residential one, while the lower portion shown by letter BEFG, petitioner is carrying on his business which he wants to expand in the disputed tenanted shop shown by letter ABCD. Another property situated in Laxmanganj, entire first floor has been given in the share of Parmeshwari Dayal and five shops in the ground floor has also been given in the share of Parmeshwari Dayal, while towards south in the ground floor two shops has been given in the share of petitioner and his brother Pawan Kant.

5. Petitioner filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, on the ground that he is carrying on business of manufacturing of Thimble which requires expansion, accordingly, disputed shop is required for expansion of the business. Contesting-respondents filed his reply to the petitioner's application stating that petitioner is a big landlord, having so much accommodation in his possession, as such, the application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 filed by petitioner is liable to be rejected. Petitioner filed his replication to the objection filed by the contesting-respondent/tenant. The shop situated in Mandi Danganj, Khurja, bearing shop no. 218 initially belong to Nanak Chank and Krishan Murari both sons of Kedar Nath. Nanak Chand died and after death of Krishan Murari it was succeeded by Anil Kumar (father of respondent no.1 & 2). Respondent no.1 & 2 are in possession of this shop, documentary evidence of Nagar Palika supported with the affidavit of Harish Rajpal was filed in the proceeding. Petitioner also filed photograph of the shops situated at Mandi Danganj in which contesting-respondents carrying their business which demonstrates that the shops situated at Mandi Danganj, Khurja, is in possession of contesting-respondents. Prescribed authority rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 vide order dated 01.03.2014. Petitioner filed an appeal under Section 22 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, against the order of prescribed authority dated 01.03.2014 which was heard by Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Bulandshahar and the same was dismissed vide order dated 30.11.2015. Hence, this writ petition.

6. This Court on 20.01.2016 heard the matter and issued notice to the respondents returnable at an early date. In pursuance of the order dated 20.01.2016 respondents have put an appearance and filed the counter affidavit. Petitioner has filed his rejoinder affidavit also.

7. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is the choice of the landlord to apply under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against any tenanted shop. The impugned order passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as the District Judge rejecting the claim of the petitioner under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, is illegal and arbitrary. He further submitted that shops situated in Mandi Danganj, Khurja is in ownership and possession of the contesting-respondents and the contesting-respondents are also not carrying any business in the disputed shop which is found to be always closed, hence, the shops situated in Mandi Danganj is available to the contesting-respondents to shift their business but the Prescribed Authority and the Additional District Judge has failed to consider the aforesaid aspect of the matter and rejected the petitioner's claim. He further submitted that disputed shop is the part of house situated in Mohalla Navapura and is suitable for expansion of petitioner's business but courts below have arbitrarily rejected the petitioner's claim. He further submitted that findings recorded by both the courts below that the disputed shop is near to the shop of Rakesh is perverse. He further submitted that impugned orders be set aside and application filed by petitioner under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 be allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the following judgment of this Court in order to demonstrate that landlord is the best judge of his requirement.

(i) 2007 (2) ARC 360 Raj Kumar Versus IIIrd Additional District Judge and others.

(ii) 2006 (3) ARC 342 Radhey Shayam Agarwal Versus Additional District & Sessions Judge Lucknow and another.

8. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

9. There is no dispute about the fact that petitioner is a landlord of the disputed shop and respondents are tenant of the same. There is also no dispute about the fact that application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 filed by petitioner has been rejected by prescribed authority and appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 22 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 has also been dismissed by Additional District Judge.

10. In order to appreciate the controversy the perusal of paragraph nos. 5 & 14 of the release application is necessary which is as under:

"5- यह कि प्रार्थी का उक्त रिलीज प्रार्थनापत्र के सन् 2006 में खारिज होनें पर प्रार्थी धीरज कुमार गोविल पुत्र हरीशंकर गोविल की मदद से उसके साथ मिलकर अपना थिम्बल (इन्सुलेटर में लगाने वाला एक पुर्जा) बनाने का कार्य 2006 में स्वास्तिक इन्टरप्राइजेज के नाम से प्रारम्भ किया और उक्त कार्य के लिए कोई उचित स्थान न मिलने पर मजबूरीवश उक्त कार्य अपने संयुक्त परिवार के पैतृत रिहायशी मकान में टेम्परेरी रूप से घर के अन्दर करने लगा तथा हैण्डप्रेस व छोटी पावर प्रेस पर उक्त पूर्जा थिम्बल बनाने लगा। अब प्रार्थी का उक्त व्यवसाय धीरे-धीरे बढ़ रह है जिसमें उसे एक छोटी पावर प्रेस और लगानी है, तथा बिजली की समस्या के निदान के लिए प्रार्थी ने जैनरेटर लगाया हुआ है जो मजबूरी में घर के अन्दर में ही लगाया हुआ है। उक्त जैनरेटर से प्रदूषण और धुआ घर में होता है, जिससें बच्चों की पढाई पर असर पडता है, तथा धुआ व प्रदूषण घर के अन्दर होने से बच्चों को श्वॉस की तकलीफ होती है प्रार्थी के भाई की बडी पुत्री को धूल व धुये से एलर्जी है, अतः घर में जैनरेटर रहने से उसे काफी तकलीफ परेशानी होती है, जिससे दोनो भाईयों व उनकी पत्नियों में तकरार होती है तथा घर में कलह होती है। अतः विवादित दुकान की जो घर के साथ ही जुडी हुई है और प्रार्थी के व्यवसाय के लिए बहुत ही उचित व उपर्युक्त है की प्रार्थी को बोनाफाइड अर्जेंट, व जेनियून आवश्यकता है।

14. यह कि विवादित दुकान के खाली करने की दशा मे विपक्षीगण को किसी प्रकार की हानि नही है क्योकि काफी अरसें से दुकानर में कोई कार्य नही हो रहा है, तथा अब तो दुकान पर से भार्गव ट्रांसपोर्ट कम्पनी का बोर्ड भी हटा दिया गया है, दुकान बन्द पड़ी रहती है उस पर ताला लगा रहता है तथा विपक्षीगण अपना-अपना स्वतंत्र कार्य व व्यवसाय कर रहे है।"

11. Prescribed authority while hearing the release application after framing issues on bonafide need & comparative hardship has rejected the release application without considering the need set up by landlord in his release application as quoted above as well as explained in his replication in reply to the objection filed by respondents /tenants.

12. The finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority on the bonafide need is as follows:-

"उभयपक्षों के अभिवचनों से यह प्रकट होता है कि पूर्व में प्रार्थी द्वारा यू०बी० वाद संख्या-10/1994 प्रश्नगत दुकान पर फोटोग्राफी की दुकान स्थापित करने हेतु अपना व्यवसाय स्थापित करने के आधार पर लाया गया था, जो दिनांक 8.8.2006 को विपक्षीगण की आवश्यकता को अधिक बलशाली पाते हुए निरस्त कर दिया गया।

एक अन्य वाद न्यायालय लघुवाद न्यायाधीश। जिला जज महोदय बुलन्दशहर। लघुवाद संख्या 11/12 जो प्रार्थी की ओर से दिनांक 14.05.2012 को विपक्षीगण के विरूद्ध 2100/- रू० मासिक दर से प्रश्नगत उपरोक्त दुकान का किराया तथा हर्जा इस्तेमाल कुल 1,00,800/- रू० की वसूली वावत विपक्षीगण को बेदखल कर कब्जा दिलाये जाने हेतु दायर कर रखा है, जो अभी विचाराधीन है तथा प्रस्तुत वाद आवश्यकता उपरोक्त के आधार पर दिनांकित 18.07.12 को लाया गया है। चूँकि प्रथम वाद प्रार्थी द्वारा प्रश्नगत दुकान को फोटोग्राफी का व्यवसाय स्थापित करने हेतु लाया गया था, जो निरस्त हो चुका है। द्वितीय वाद बकाया किराये की वसूली एवं बेदखली हेतु लघुवाद न्यायालय में विचाराधीन है और उक्त वाद के विचाराधीन रहते हुए पुनः आवश्यकता के आधार पर व्यवसाय को बढ़ाने के लिए मकान में लगे जेनरेटर से धुँआ आदि के प्रदूषण से हो रही परेशानी एवं वर्करों तथा कारोबारियों से होने वाली परेशानी के आधार पर लाया गया है। प्रस्तुत प्रार्थना-पत्र प्रस्तुत करते समय अपने प्रार्थना पत्र में उपरोक्त वाद संख्या 11/2012 का कोई विवरण प्रार्थी द्वारा नहीं दिया गया है। यद्यपि आवश्यकताएं दिन-प्रतिदिन बढ़ती रहती है तथा प्रार्थी द्वारा अपने संयुक्त परिवार के आधिपत्य में जो एक दुकान खाली है, उसके खाली होने से भी इंकार नहीं किया है। जो प्रार्थी के पास अच्छा विकल्प है। इस प्रकार प्रार्थी द्वारा अपना प्रार्थना-पत्र भिन्न समय पर भिन्न एवं विरोधाभाषी आधार पर प्रस्तुत किया गया है। उसकी मांग केवल विपक्षीगण के कब्जे से किरायेदारी की दुकान को खाली कराये जाने की है और प्रार्थी स्वच्छ एवं सदभावनापूर्ण अपना प्रार्थना पत्र नहीं लाया है। अतएव उपरोक्त के आधार पर स्पष्ट हो जाता है कि प्रार्थी की आवश्यकता एक सदभावी आवश्यकता नहीं है। उसके पास वैकल्पिक व्यवस्था है।"

13. The finding as well as the judgment of Prescribed Authority was maintained in appeal without considering the need of the landlord in proper manner as held by this Court in Raj Kumar (Supra) & Radhey Shayam Agarwal (Supra) which has been relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in which it has been held by this Court that landlord is the best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has complete freedom in the matter.

14. Paragraph No. 5 of the judgment rendered in Raj Kumar (Supra) is relevant for perusal which is as under:

"5. The learned Counsel for the respondent also placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in (2000) 1 SCC 679: 2000 SCFBRC 24, Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery & Co., wherein it has been held by the Apex Court that it is settled position of law that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter. He has also relied upon 2004 (1) ARC 613: (2004) 3 SCC 682: Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash for the proposition that in such matters High Court should not act like a Court of appeal."

15. Paragraph Nos. 17, 18 & 19 of the judgment rendered in Radhey Shayam Agarwal (Supra) is relevant for perusal which are as follows:-

"17. The appellate authority has also ignored the finding of the learned prescribed authority that the landlord has a right to use the premises for expanding his business and augment his income vide Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava, 2021 (1) JCLR 109 (SC) ; 2021 (42) 685. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in another Judgment in Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery and Co. 2000 (38) ALR 458, has held that it is a settled position of law that the landlord is the best Judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter. In the said case, the plaintiff landlord wanted the eviction of the tenant from the suit premises for starting his business as it was suitable and it cannot be faulted. Similar views have been expressed in G.C. Kapoor v. Nand Kumar Bhasin and Others, 2001 (45) ALR 808. This Court in Smt. Nirmala Tandon and Ors. v. Xth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and Ors., 1997 (29) ALR 12 (Sum): (2) ARC 409 and Shree Chand Gupta v. XVIII Additional District Judge, Meerut and Others, 1999 (2) JCLR 69 (All) : 1999 (35) ALR 269, has also dealt with the issue that a finding of fact may be interfered with when it is based on account of wrong application of principle of law relevant thereto or relevant material has not been taken into consideration, or a finding is otherwise arbitrary or perverse. These elements are present in this case. I find force in the submissions made by Sri S.M.K. Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner which are squarely covered by the case-laws cited by him, as referred to above. On the other hand, the decisions cited by Sri M.S. Kotwal, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2, as referred to above, cannot be applied in the present set of circumstances.

18. In the opinion of this Court, the view taken by the appellate authority is highly erroneous in law. The tenant is already having in his possession a portion of the building for residential purpose. It is an uncontroverted fact that he has purchased a double-storyed House No. 9. Gopi Nath Building, R.B.L. Road, Lucknow where he and his family are residing or if not residing, he can continue in the portion of the building which is still under his occupation. He has not searched alternative accommodation. These facts by itself are sufficient to decide the question of comparative hardships against the tenant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Siddalingama v. M. Shenoy 2002 (46) ALR 18 (SC), has held that the entire Rent Control Act is basically meant for the benefit of the tenant and provision of release on the ground of bona-fide need is the only provision which treats the landlords with some sympathy.

19. In view of above, the writ petition is allowed. The Judgment and order of the lower appellate court dated 18.4.2002 is set aside. The Judgment and order of the prescribed authority dated 28.9.1999 allowing the release application filed by the landlord and ordering eviction of the tenant is upheld."

16. Considering the need of the landlord/petitioner as set up in the release application and the judgment passed by prescribed authority as well as Additional District Judge, the release application filed by petitioner requires reconsideration in view of law laid by this Court in Raj Kumar (Supra) & Radhey Shayam Agarwal (Supra).

17. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, impugned order dated 30.11.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, Bulandshahar and order dated 01.03.2014 passed by Prescribed Authority/A.C.J.M. Khurja, Bulandshahar are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed and matter is remanded back before Prescribed Authority to decide the Case No. 9 of 2012 (Dhiraj Govil Versus Mohit Bhargav and another) filed under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to both parties expeditiously preferably within period of 3 months from the date of production of certified of this judgment before him.

18. No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 5.4.2023

Rameez / Imtiyaz