Allahabad High Court
Hari Ram Gupta And Ors. vs Smt. Shila Rani And Ors. on 4 March, 2025
Author: Pankaj Bhatia
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13258
Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8353 of 2016
Petitioner :- Hari Ram Gupta And Ors.
Respondent :- Smt. Shila Rani And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Laltaprasad Misra,Deepanshu Dass
Counsel for Respondent :- R.S.Yadav,Lokendra Kumar Gupta,Mirza Humayun Qadar,Ravendra Pratap Singh,Sobhit Nigam
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard Sri Deepanshu Dass, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging an order dated 30.11.2012 passed by the Additional Civil Judge in P.A. Case No.12 of 1992 whereby in exercise of powers under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, the premises in question was directed to be released in favour of the landlord as well as order dated 10.03.2016 whereby the appeal preferred by the predecessor of the petitioner as well as petitioner was dismissed being Appeal no. 1 of 2013.
3. The facts that arise from the pleadings are that an application was filed under Section 21(1)(a) by the predecessor of the respondent seeking release of the shop. In the said application, it was pleaded that the petitioner was the tenant of the shop in question at a monthly rent of Rs.200/-. In the written statement it was stated that the tenant was paying a "Bhatak" of Rs.200/-, other allegations with regard to bonafide need and comparative hardship were also denied in the written statement. Subsequently, the written statement was sought to be amended by moving an amendment application, the said amendment application was allowed and the written statement was amended. In the amended written statement besides other pleadings, it was pleaded that the shop in question was co-owned by the petitioner with regard to rent, it was stated that the "Bhatak" at the rate of Rs.200/- was being paid which was equal to the rent to the equivalent premises. In paragraph 25 of the amended written statement, it was specifically pleaded that the rent of the shop in question was Rs.200/- per month. The Prescribed Authority on the basis of the pleadings framed three issues with regard to the relationship of landlord and tenant, the bonafide need as pleaded by the landlord and the comparative hardship. While determining the issues, the Prescribed Authority held that the relationship of landlord and tenant was established on the basis of the pleadings itself taking into account the definition of tenant under the Act. While determining the issue of bonafide need, the Prescribed Authority held that the affidavit filed by the plaintiff was not acceptable, however, based upon the other affidavit, which are on record, the bonafide need was found to be genuine. On the ground of comparative hardship also, the issue was decided in favour of the landlord. The tenant preferred an appeal against the said release order. In the Appellate Court also, three issues were proposed to be decided, the first issue being the relationship of landlord and tenant. The Appellate Court placing reliance on the fact that an amount of Rs.200/- was being paid as rent which itself was enough to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant in view of the definition of the tenant as contained in Section 3(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972. On the issue of bonafide need and comparative hardship also, the Appellate Court concurred with the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority.
4. Assailing the two orders, the counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that in the written statement what was admitted was that he was paying a "Bhatak" of Rs.200/- and there was no admission with regard to rent. He specifically and strenuously argues that "Bhatak" and rent are two different concepts and could not have been confused as has been done by the Courts below. He strenuously argued that the specific pleadings in the additional written statement with regard to the right of the tenant being a co-owner were not decided by the Courts. On the issue of bonafide need, as accepted by the Courts, he argues that the first affidavit filed by the landlord was not acceptable being Document No. C-32 and thus, the issue of bonafide need could have been decided in favour of the landlord as has been done by means of the impugned judgment. Specific query was made as to how does he justify that "Bhatak" and rent are different, he tried to justify by saying that "Bhatak" is kind of maintenance given and cannot be equated with rent. He said argument almost took fifteen minutes. The said argument was clearly contrary to the pleadings as contained in Para 8 of the writ petition, wherein the petitioner himself admitted that he was a tenant paying a rent of Rs.200/- per month. The reasons for arguing contrary to the pleadings are not clear to this Court.
5. The other issue with regard to bonafide need was addressed by arguing that C-32 the document filed by the plaintiff was not accepted admittedly by the Prescribed Authority, however in the other two affidavits, relied upon by the Prescribed Authority for proving the bonafide need, there is no pleading in the entire writ petition to suggest that the said two affidavits were either controverted or were not filed. In the absence of such, the only conclusion that can be discerned is that the said two affidavits were uncontroverted, as such, I do not see any reason to hold that the Prescribed Authority erred in relying upon the said two affidavits to record a finding that the bonafide need was established.
6. As regards the comparative hardship, it was specifically pleaded before the Authorities that the petitioner had four shops in his possession. In the entire writ petition, there is no averment that the petitioner has no shop other than the shop in question. In the absence of any pleadings, arguments have been advanced persistently for about one hour despite the Court cautioning the lawyer not to argue contrary to pleadings, which is surprising. In view of the fact that concurrent finding of fact has been recorded on all the three issue by both the Courts. There is no reason to interfere with the said order. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
7. For misleading this Court deliberately by the counsel and arguing contrary to the pleadings, this Court cannot shut its eyes as precious judicial time was wasted despite repeated warnings, as such, a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lac) is imposed upon the petitioners, which shall jointly and severally be paid within a period of one month before the Senior Registrar of this Court, failing which, the District Magistrate, Barabanki shall recover the same as arrears of land revenue and shall remit the same before the Senior Registrar. The Senior Registrar shall remit the cost to Oudh Bar Association for library funds.
8. The Court records it dismay for wasting the precious judicial time. In the interest of justice, although the case warrants, this Court is not imposing cost on the Counsel.
9. As the suit was filed in the year 1992, it is directed that the Prescribed Authority shall send a report to this Court after executing the decree as was passed within a period of one month from today.
10. The Senior Registrar of this Court shall forward a copy of this order to the Prescribed Authority as well as District Magistrate, Barabanki through District Judge, Barabanki for its compliance.
Order Date :- 4.3.2025
Arun
