Mahendra Pal Sharma Dead And 2 Others vs Smt. Kasturi Devi (Dead) And 10 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 12473 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Mahendra Pal Sharma Dead And 2 Others vs Smt. Kasturi Devi (Dead) And 10 Others on 13 November, 2025

Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal

Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:201063
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 13441 of 2025   
 
   Mahendra Pal Sharma Dead And 2 Others    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   Smt. Kasturi Devi (Dead) And 10 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Rajendra Singh Chauhan   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
Ajai Mani Tiwari   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 36
 
   
 
 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.      

1. This matter under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing the order dated 13.12.1986 passed by the Prescribed Authority in PA Case No. 53 of 1983 and judgment and order dated 28.05.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Hathras in U.P.U.B. Appeal No. 1 of 1997.

2. Facts in brief are that one Badri Prasad was the original landlord of the house let out to tenant, Mahendra Pal Sharma, in the year 1973 at a monthly rent of Rs. 75/-. Badri Prasad unfortunately died in the year 1982 and his widow Kasturi Devi and his five sons filed a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for personal need on the ground that the sons of late Badri Prasad had been married and have children and proceedings for eviction has been initiated by the landlord in respect of the accommodation in which they are living which has been registered as Case No. 15 of 1981. The aforesaid release application was registered as PA Case No. 1983. The Prescribed Authority allowed the release application holding that the need of the landlord was bonafide and genuine and the comparative hardship was in favour of the landlord. The suit was decreed on 03.12.1996. Against the said judgment, the tenant, Mahendra Pal Sharma filed a rent appeal which was allowed on 16.10.1999 on the ground that the comparative hardship lies in favour of the defendant and against the landlord. The order of the appellate court was challenged by the landlords through Writ-A No. 8997 of 2000. The appellate court's order was set aside by the judgment dated 06.11.2012 passed by the coordinate Bench and matter was remitted back to the appellate court to decide the appeal afresh giving parties opportunity to lead evidence in the light of the subsequent events/changed circumstances.

3. Post remand by the coordinate Bench, the petitioner-tenant moved an amendment application after eight years on 29.10.2020 for amending the written statement which was allowed. Against the amended written statement, landlord-respondent filed their replication. The appellate court, thereafter, framed the following points of consideration in the light of the subsequent events/changed circumstances which are as under:

"(i) Whether the need of landlord of the disputed residential house is genuine and bonafide after the subsequent events/changed circumstances?

(ii) Whether the comparative hardship is more in favour of petitioner/respondent than the appellant/tenant under the changed circumstances?"

4. While deciding the first point of consideration, appellate court found the need of landlord to be genuine and bonafide after the subsequent events/changed circumstances and also found that the comparative hardship tilted in favour of the landlord rather, the tenant and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on 28.07.2025. Hence, the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that post remand by the writ court, the need of the landlord had completely exhausted as two sons of Kasturi Devi had already died and the other three sons were well settled and were not needing the residential accommodation in question. He further submitted that the appellate court had only reiterated the order passed by the Prescribed Authority without looking to the fact that there was changed circumstances and the requirement was not there for the landlord as per the need set up by them in the year 1983. He further submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, Surendra Kumari Sharma, widow of original tenant- Mahendra Pal Sharma had died and the petitioner no. 1/2- Ashok Vala Sharma, who is a widow is living in the accommodation and is an old lady having no other place to live. According to the petitioner, the other sons of late Mahendra Pal Sharma are living outside the Hathras and the petitioner has no means to purchase any house or take other house on rent. He further submitted that the petitioner be permitted to live in the accommodation in question during her lifetime, after which, the same may be released in favour of the landlords. It was also contended that the appellate court had committed irregularity by considering replication filed on behalf of the landlord as it does not constitute part of the pleading under Order VI Rule 1 C.P.C.. Reliance has been placed upon the decision rendered in the case of Hasmat Rai and another Vs. Raghunath Prasad; (1981) 3 SCC 103, M/s. Shakambhari Colonizers (P) Ltd., Meerut Vs. Cantonment Board, Meerut; 2007 (1) JCLR 79 (All), Dr. Oudhesh Narain Vs. Additional Distgrtict & Sessions Judge Lucknow; Rent Control No. 33 of 2009, Dilip Singh Chawla Vs. Krishna Kurari Gupta and others; Rent Control No. 89 of 1999, Mohd. Ismail Vs. Dinkar Vinayakrao Dorlikar; (2009) 10 SCC 193.

6. Shri Ajai Mani Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the original tenant was Mahendra Pal Sharma, who had five sons, out of which, three sons had already pre-deceased him while the fourth son was as Professor and has constructed his own house, who is living there while the fifth son is living at Delhi. According to him, the petitioner, Ashok Vala Sharma is living in the house of Sharmishtha Rani situated in Nehru Colony, Hathras. He further submitted that after the death of Mahendra Pal Sharma, his wife Surendra Kumari Sharma also died during the pendency of the appeal. According to him, the need was set up by the landlord in 1983 for residential purpose as late Badri Prasad and Kasturi Devi had five sons, who were married and the family at that time consist of nine persons and they did not have sufficient space to live in. During the pendency of the release application, two sons Murari Lal and Vishnu Kumar had unfortunately died. The accommodation could not be released for last 42 years and the matter has been dragged upon. He further submitted that at present, the grandchildren of Kasturi Devi, could not be married because of space crunch. According to him, the comparative hardship of the landlord is much more than that of the tenant as it is a double storey accommodation and the comparative hardship of the tenant, Mahendra Pal Sharma has come to end after his death which was recorded by the appellate court in the year 1999.

7. I have heard the respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

8. It is a case where the landlord had approached the court for getting the accommodation released in the year 1983 for the need then set up. From perusal of the release application filed by the landlord, it transpires that the family constituted nine persons and the accommodation in which they were living was very small and they were in dire need of the accommodation let out by them to the tenant-petitioner. The litigation was dragged and the release application was decided after 13 years in the year 1996.

9. On appeal filed by the tenant, the hardship of tenant was found to be more than that of landlord looking to his age. The appeal was allowed and the matter travelled to this Court which was finally decided in the year 2012 setting aside the order of the appellate court and remanding the case back to the appellate court for deciding afresh in view of the changed circumstances which has taken place.

10. The appellant/petitioner had moved an application for amending of his written statement after eight years in the year 2020 which was allowed and the written statement was amended. It was replication filed on behalf of the landlord to the amended written statements. Counsel for the petitioner had laid great stress that the replication does not constitute pleading. It is well settled that under Order VI Rule 1 of C.P.C. only the plaint and written statement constitute pleading. In the instant case, it is an admitted position that once the written statement was amended that replication was filed rebutting the facts which has been introduced by the tenant in his written statement on the basis of the decision of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the year 2012 adding changed circumstances which needed to be rebutted through the replication.

11. Thus, the provisions of Order VI Rule 1 of C.P.C. would not come into play in the present situation. During the pendency of the appeal, it is an admitted fact that the widow of the original tenant, Mahendra Pal Sharma also died and only Ashok Vala Sharma is surviving and living in double storeyed residential accommodation. It has been brought on record that the petitioner is residing with some Sharmishtha Rani.

12. Further from the pleading made by the parties, it appears that no effort has been made by the petitioner to look for alternative accommodation as she is the daughter-in-law of the original tenant Mahendra Pal Sharma. The initial round of litigation was decided in appeal on the strength of the comparative hardship which tilted in favour of tenant, Mahendra Pal Sharma, who was an old man and retired from Government job.

13. Once neither Mahendra Pal Sharma or his widow is surviving and the accommodation has been succeeded by very daughter-in-law, she cannot hold possession over the same, contesting the release application of the respondent-landlords on the ground that their sons have become old and do not need the accommodation.

14. Finding of fact has been recorded by both the courts below as to the bonafide and genuine need of the landlord as well as comparative hardships tilts in favour of the landlord.

15. The landlords have also through their short counter affidavit have brought on record that the petitioner is an active political worker and had number of times had used the accommodation to run the office of a political party.

16. Having heard the counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that it is a very hard case where the landlord is knocking the doors of justice for land 43 years for getting the residential accommodation released in his favour looking to the family needs. The matter has dragged on solely on the ground that the need set up by the landlord had exhausted. From the record, it reveals that it is the third generation, who is in desperate need of the accommodation looking to the age as they have not married due to space crunch and taking the premises from the landlord would create great injustice.

17. The Court cannot sit as mute spectator and shuts its eyes from the realities of life. The need set up by the landlord still continues in the fact that the grandchildren of Kasturi Devi need the premises in question desperately. The need set up still survives in favour of the landlord, who are facing great hardship. The argument raised from the petitioner's side cannot be accepted that Ashok Vala Sharma should be permitted to live during her lifetime and the house will be released in favour of the landlord after her death.

18. Considering the facts and circumstances, I find that no case for interference is made out in the order impugned. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)

November 13, 2025

A. V. Singh