Allahabad High Court
Satya Prakash Maddheshiya vs Smt. Chanda Gupta And 3 Others on 27 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:149233
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9784 of 2025
Court No. - 37
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Shashi Kant Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for respondent/ landlord.
2. Brief facts of the case are that proceeding under Section 21 (1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was initiated in respect to the shop in question by the respondent/ landlord in the year 2014 which has been registered as P.A. case No. 37 of 2014. Petitioner/ tenant filed his written statement in the aforementioned proceeding. During pendency of the aforementioned proceeding, the amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. was filed to amend the written statement. Prescribed authority vide order dated 21.12.2019 allowed the release application filed by respondent/ landlord and directed for release of the shop in question by the petitioner/ tenant in favour of respondent/ landord. Against the order of the prescribed authority dated 21.12.2019, appeal under Section 22 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed on behalf of the petitioner/ tenant. Thea aforementioned appeal was registered as rent appeal No. 4 of 2020. Appellate Court/ Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (E.C.) Act, Gorakhpur heard the aforementioned rent appeal and vide order dated 10.4.2025 dismissed the appeal and maintained the order of prescribed authority. Hence this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following relief:-
"(i) Issue an order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the judgment and order dated 10.04.2025 Additional & passed by Session District Judge/Special Judge, (E.C. Act), Gorakhpur and judgment and order dated 21.12.2019 passed by Prescribed Authority/Judge Small Causes Court, Gorakhpur (Annexure No.1 to this petition).
(ii) Issue an order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents that not to eject the petitioner from shop in question, not to recover the arrear of rent and damages by the petitioner during pendency of this petition."
3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the needs set up by the landlord for the shop in question was not bonafide accordingly objection was filed on behalf of the petitioner/ tenant but prescribed authority has not considered the objection of the petitioner in proper manner and allowed the release application filed by landlord. He submitted that finding recorded on bonafide need and the comparative hardship is illegal, as such, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that appeal filed by petitioner/ tenant has also been dismissed without considering the case as set up in appeal. He submitted that petitioner is tenant of the shop in question since 1958 and there is no other place available for the petitioner/ tenant to earn his livelihood, as such, the release application filed by the landlord should be rejected.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent/ landlord submitted that needs set up by the landlord was bonafide and genuine accordingly prescribed authority has recorded the finding of fact on the bona fide need as well as on the comparative hardship of the parties in favour of landlord. He submitted that proper issues were framed before the prescribed authority as well as point of determination were framed in appeal. He submitted that proper consideration was made while deciding the release application, as such, no interference is required in the matter. He submitted that petition filed by petitioner should be dismissed.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
6. There is no dispute about the fact that proceeding under Section 21 (1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 has been decided by prescribed authority in allowing the release application filed by respondent/ landlord and appeal under Section 22 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 filed by petitioner/ tenant has been dismissed by the appellate authority.
7. In order to appreciate the controversy, the perusal of points of determination framed by the prescribed authority will be relevant which are as under:-
"???????? ??? ?? ???????? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ???????? ???????? ?????? ???? ???? ??,
1-???? ????????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ??? ????????? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ????? ??? ???? 21 ????? ?????? ???? ??? ?????????? ??????? 1972 ?? ??? ?????? ???
2-???? ?? ????? ??? ???????????? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ???
3-???? ?? ????? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ???????? ?????''
8. The prescribed authority while deciding the points of determination nos. 1,2 and 3 has recorded finding of fact that the needs set up by the landlord is bonafide and comparative hardship is in favour of landlord in comparison to tenant. The perusal of the finding of fact recorded by the prescribed authority demonstrate that there is proper exercise of jurisdiction under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 by the prescribed authority.
9. The Appellate Court has also considered the case of the parties while deciding the appeal under Section 22 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 framing the points of determination in the appeal. The perusal of appellate judgement also demonstrate that there is proper consideration of the bonafide need of the landlord and comparative hardship of the parties in respect to the shop in question.
10. 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."
11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances as well as ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kanhaiya Lal Arya (Supra), there is no scope of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the concurrent judgement passed by prescribed authority and appellate Court in the proceeding under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
12. The writ petition is dismissed. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner/ tenant is granted six months time to vacate the shop in question subject to the following conditions:
(a). Petitioner/ tenant shall file an undertaking before the prescribed authority within period of three weeks from today to the effect that he will handover peaceful possession of the shop in question to the respondent / landlord within period of six months from the date of passing of this judgement.
(b). In the undertaking, petitioner / tenant shall also state that he will not create any third party interest in the shop in question.
(c). In case of default of any of the condition mentioned above, protection granted by this Court shall automatically vacated.
(d). In case shop in question is not vacated as per the undertaking given by the petitioner/ tenant, he shall be liable for contempt.
August 27, 2025
Vandana Y.
