Allahabad High Court
Chandra Kumar Gupta And Another vs Smt. Sandhya Singh And 3 Others on 28 January, 2023
Bench: Salil Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1605 of 2023
Petitioner :- Chandra Kumar Gupta And Another
Respondent :- Smt. Sandhya Singh And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Himanshu Singh,Nitin Jain,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent :- Suresh Pratap Singh,Daya Shankar Vishwakarama
Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Heard the counsel for the parties.
This is a tenant's petition challenging the order dated 21.10.2021 passed by the Prescribed Authority in Rent Case No. 99 of 2018 registered under Section 21(1)(a) of Act No. 13 of 1972 as well as against the judgment and order dated 13.1.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Misc. Rent Appeal No. 01 of 2022 filed against the order of the Prescribed Authority.
The relevant facts of the case are that the respondents - landlady instituted Rent Case No. 99 of 2018 for release of House No. 87/109, Bhannanapurwa, Thana - Raipurwa, Kanpur Nagar in her favour on the ground that the building was bona fide required by her for residential as well as business purposes and for the business of her husband. It was also stated in the application filed under Section 21(1)(a) that the tenants - petitioners had other residential buildings in which they can shift. The courts below, after considering the pleadings and the evidence filed by the parties, have accepted the plea of bona fide need set-up by the respondents - landlady and have allowed the application filed under Section 21(1)(a) of Act No. 13 of 1972. Hence, the present petition.
It was argued by the counsel for the petitioners that admittedly the building was let out to the petitioners for residential purposes and, therefore, in light of Section 21(1) III - Proviso (ii), the building could not have been released for commercial purposes and in view of the aforesaid, the orders passed by the courts below are contrary to law and liable to be set-aside.
The contention of the counsel for the petitioners is not acceptable. It is evident from a reading of the application filed under Section 21(1)(a) of Act No. 13 of 1972 as well as from the orders passed by the courts below that the commercial need as set-up by the landlady was that three rooms in the building shall be used for Masala business of her husband wherein raw-materials as well as finished products shall be stored. The building consists of other rooms also and it was pleaded by the landlady that the rooms shall be used for residential purposes. It was stated in the application that one room shall be used as bed room and one room shall be used as study room for her daughters and for relatives and the landlady also required a separate room to be used as drawing room, kitchen and for daily utilities. Apparently, the need set-up was residential. In any case, the Masala business is a small scale venture and such business are normally done by people from their residences. In view of the aforesaid, the prohibition of the Third Proviso (ii) to Section 21(1)(a) of Act No. 13 of 1972 does not apply in the present case.
The issue of comparative hardship has also been decided in favour of the landlady after noting that the tenants - petitioners had not made any attempt to look for alternative accommodation and also on the ground that the tenants - petitioners owned other residential properties.
The findings recorded by the courts below are concurrent findings of fact based on relevant evidence on record and I do not find any perversity in the same so as to occasion interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The prayer to quash the orders of the Prescribed Authority and the appellate court stand rejected.
However, considering the circumstances of the case, it is directed that the petitioners shall not be evicted from the demised premises till 31st August, 2023 provided they file an affidavit within two weeks from today before the Prescribed Authority undertaking that they shall vacate the demised premises by 31st August, 2023 and continue to deposit the monthly rent before the Prescribed Authority which the landlady shall be entitled to withdraw.
On failure of the petitioners to comply with any of the aforesaid conditions, the Prescribed Authority shall proceed to enforce its orders expeditiously under Section 23 of Act No. 13 of 1972 on an application for the said purpose filed by the landlady.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 28.1.2023
Satyam
