Ashok Kumar Gupta vs Dr. Saurabh Shaha And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 9163 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ashok Kumar Gupta vs Dr. Saurabh Shaha And Another on 26 August, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:147976
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
WRIT - A No. - 10524 of 2025
 

 

 
Court No. - 37
 
Reserved on 29.7.2025
 
Delivered on 26.8.2025
 
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manas Bhargava, learned counsel for respondents/ landlord.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is a tenant of a shop and a store situated on the ground floor of building bearing Municipal No. 52/43, Nai Dal Mandi Kanpur Nagar on monthly rent of Rs. 52.50 paisa. The proceeding under Section 21 (1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 hereinafter referred to as Act No. 13 of 1972 was initiated at the instance of respondent/ landlords for release of accommodation in his favour alleging that landlord is a physician having a clinic in the aforementioned building with no space for radiological and pathological set up, as such, the accommodation in possession of the petitioner/ tenant should be released in his favour. Petitioner/ tenant contested the release application by filing written statement stating that needs set up by landlords is not bonafide, as such, release application should be rejected. During pendency of the release application, the landlords amended the release application accordingly petitioner/ tenant filed his additional written statement. Prescribed authority vide order dated 16.8.2013 allowed the release application accordingly petitioner filed an appeal under Section 22 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 which was dismissed vide order dated 24.2.2015. Against the appellate order dated 24.2.2015, petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered as Writ A No. 13764 of 2015. The aforementioned writ petition was allowed vide judgement and order dated 24.2.2015 setting aside the appellate order dated 24.2.2015 as well as order dated 16.8.2013 passed by prescribed authority and matter was remitted back before the prescribed authority to decide the proceeding afresh vide judgement and order dated 20.3.2015. In pursuance of the order dated 20.3.2015 passed by this Court, prescribed authority heard the matter and vide order dated 5.10.2015 again allowed the release application filed by respondents/ landlords and directed the petitioner/ tenant to vacate the shop in question within period of two months. Against the order of prescribed authority dated 5.10.2015, rent appeal was filed on behalf of the petitioner/ tenant before District Judge. The aforementioned appeal was registered as rent appeal No. 85 of 2015. Additional District Judge Court No. 24 Kanpur Nagar vide final order dated 16.8.2016 dismissed the rent appeal filed by petitioner/ tenant. Petitioner/ tenant again challenged the order of prescribed authority as well as appellate authority by way of Writ A No. 50036 of 2016 before this Court. This Court vide final judgement dated 30.11.2021 allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter before the prescribed authority to decide the proceeding afresh. Respondent/ landlord challenged the order of this Court dated 30.11.2021 before Apex Court and the Apex Court vide order dated 8.2.2022 in S.L.P. No. 698 of 2022 affirmed the order of this Court dated 30.11.2021. In pursuance of the order dated 30.11.2021, prescribed authority vide order dated 13.3.2024 allowed the release application filed by respondents/ landlords. Against the order of prescribed authority dated 13.3.2024, petitioner/ tenant filed a rent appeal No. 94 of 2024. During pendency ofaforementioned rent appeal No.94 of 2024, the Appellate Authority enhanced the rent of the shop in question to Rs.17,500/- per month. The order enhancing the rent to Rs.17,500 per month was challenged by petitioner / tenant before this Court by way of Writ A No.16733 of 2024. This Court vide order dated 24.10.2024 disposed of the aforementioned writ petition finally reducing rent to Rs.7,000/- per month from Rs.17,500 per month with further direction that rent appeal No.94 of 2024 be decided within a period of three months. Appellate Court vide order dated 25.2.2025 dismissed the rent appeal filed by the petitioner/tenant. Hence, this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner / tenant for the following relief :-

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgement and order dated 13.3.2024 passed by the Prescribed Authority/ Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No.2, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Case No. 23 of 2010: Dr. Saurabh Shah Vs. Ashok Kumar Gupta, and the judgement and order dated 25.2.2025 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.8 Kanpur Nagar in Rent Appeal No. 94 of 2024, Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs. Dr. Saurabh Shah and another."

3. This Court heard the matter on 29.7.2025 and reserved the judgment fixing 26.8.2025 for delivery of judgment. The Court has further ordered that till the date of delivery of judgment, petitioner/tenant shall not be evicted from the accommodation in pursuance of the impugned order dated 13.3.2024.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that prescribed authority as well as appellate authority have erred in not adjudicating the issue of part release despite there being a specific pleading in this regard in the objection of the tenant. She further submitted that during pendency of present release proceedings, the respondents/ landlords succeeded in obtaining possession of two shops and two adjoining store rooms on the ground floor of the building in question, as such, the need of respondents/landlords is fulfilled but prescribed authority has not taken into consideration the aforementioned aspect of the matter and passed the order for release of the shop in question in favour of landlord. She further submitted that subsequent events were specifically brought to the notice of the prescribed authority as well as appellate Court but they have erred in not taking the same into consideration. She submitted that possession of one tenament was delivered by the tenant Sharad Sahu and Bharat Sahu to the respondents/landlords in pursuance of the release order passed by the prescribed authority but respondents/landlords pressed his release application respect to the tenament which is in possession of petitioner / tenant regarding which there is no bonafide needs of the respondents/landlords. She submitted that remand order passed by this Court has not been taken into consideration by the prescribed authority as well as appellate authority, as such, both the impugned orders should be set aside. She further submitted that respondent No.1 is a physiologist working at Government Medical College but he is neither a radiologist nor pathologist, as such, he is not authorized to run a pathology or radiology centre so the needs set up by the landlord/respondent is not bonafide. She submitted that both the impugned orders should be set aside and the release application filed by the landlords/respondents should be dismissed. She further placed the following judgments of this Court in support of her arguments :-

"(i) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11402 of 1981 Mohammad Yaqub Vs. The IVth Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur and others decided on 30.8.1984.

(ii) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 643 of 1987 Prakash Babu and Others Vs. IInd Addl. District Judge, Aligarh and Others decided on 11.8.1988."

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents / landlords submitted that prescribed authority / appellate authority on three occasions have held that need of the respondents / landlords is bonafide and genuine as well as comparative hardship is also in favour of landlord in comparison to tenant, as such, there is no scope of interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that landlord is a doctor and in order to expand his medical profession as well as to satisfy the need of family members for their independent business, the prescribed authority has allowed the release application of the respondents / landlords. He placed the judgment of prescribed authority in order to demonstrate that the needs set up by the landlord is bonafide and the comparative hardship is in favour of landlord. He submitted that landlord cannot be deprived from his accommodation on the bonafide needs set up by landlord before the prescribed authority. He submitted that no interference is required against the impugned judgment passed by the prescribed authority and appellate Court. He submitted that the present writ petition should be dismissed.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. There is no dispute about the fact that release application filed by respondents / landlords was allowed by the prescribed authority and the order has been maintained in appeal under the impugned order. There is also no dispute about the fact that earlier on two occasions, the jurisdiction was exercised by prescribed authority and appellate Court in favour of landlord but this Court has set aside the order of prescribed authority as well as appellate Court and remitted the matter back to decide the release proceeding afresh.

8. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the perusal of point of determination framed by prescribed authority while deciding the release application will be relevant which are as under :-

"??? ???? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??????????? ????? ??????? ?? ???????? ?? ?????????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ???:-

1-???? ?????? ? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ? ????????? ?? ????? ???????? ?? ?

2- ???? ?????????? ?? ?????????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ??????? ???????? ???

3- ????????? ?? ???? ????????? ???????"

9. Prescribed authority has considered the point of determination which relates to relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, bonafide need of the landlord in respect to the shop in question and comparative hardship of the parties. Prescribed authority considering the entire aspect of the matter has held that needs set up by respondents / landlords in respect to their medical profession is bonafide. The prescribed authority has also recorded finding of fact that by refusing to release the shop in favour of respondents / landlords, the medical profession of landlord will suffer, as such, comparative hardship is in favour of landlord rather tenant.

10. Consisdering the finding of fact recorded by the prescribed authority on the bonafide need and comparative hardships of the parties, there is no scope of further interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

11. TheApex Court in the case reported in 2025 (3) ADJ 308, Kanahaiya Lal Arya vs. Md. Ehshan & Others has held that the landlord is a best judge to decide which of his property should be vacated for satisfying his particular need and tenant has no role in dictating as to which premises of the landlord should get vacated for his need alleged in the suit for eviction. Paragraph nos.11,15 & 16 of the judgement of Apex Court rendered in Kanahaiya Lal Arya (supra) will be relevant, which are as under:

"11. In the case at hand, the appellant-landlord may be having some other properties under tenancy of various persons but once he has decided to get the suit premises vacated for the bona fide need of establishing an ultrasound machine for his two unemployed sons, he cannot be forced to initiate such a proceeding against the other tenants. It is for the appellant-landlord to take a decision in this regard and once he has decided to get the suit premises vacated, no error or illegality could be pointed out in his decision. Secondly, it has come on record by clear finding of the court of first instance that the suit premises is the most suitable accommodation for establishing an ultrasound machine. The reason being that it is situated adjacent to a medical clinic and a pathological centre and is the most appropriate place for establishing any medical machine. Moreover, the appellant-landlord has also proved his capacity to invest in purchasing/establishing an ultrasound machine and that his two sons are unemployed and as such the suit premises is required to establish them in business and to augment the family?s income. Therefore, the bona fide need of the appellant-landlord stands duly established.

15. As would be evident from the above compromise, the decree for partial eviction from the premises occupied by the respondents-tenant was partially decreed in Second Appeal No.40/1983 on 31.03.1988 for the bona fide need of the appellant-landlord to establish his brother-in-law. The said need was altogether a different need. The said decree of the year 1988, even if not used for the purpose intended, it would not affect the rights of the appellant- landlord which accrues to him in the year 2001. The need of the appellant-landlord for getting the suit premises vacated for establishing his two sons has to be seen on the date of filing of the suit i.e., 28.11.2001. On the said date, the need of the appellant-landlord stands established. The said need would not get eroded by any earlier decree of eviction of the year 1988.

?16. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant-landlord has proved his bona fide need for the suit premises. The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 18.08.2022 and 25.09.2006 of the High Court and the First Appellate Court respectively are set aside. The suit of the appellant- landlord stands decreed."

12. The appellate Court has also maintained the order of prescribed authority considering the entire aspect of the matter, as such, there is no illegality in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction by the Appellate Court.

13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required against the impugned judgment passed by the prescribed authority and appellate Court. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.

August 26, 2025/ Vandana Y.