Allahabad High Court
Ramautar vs Ramesh Chand Sharma on 10 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:180284
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved on 04.09.2025
Delivered on 10.10.2025
WRIT - A No. - 2647 of 2025
Ramautar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Ramesh Chand Sharma
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Arvind Srivastava, Satya Prakash Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Uma Nath Pandey
.
with
WRIT - A No. - 12907 of 2025
Ramautar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Ramesh Chand Sharma
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Arvind Srivastava, Satya Prakash Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Uma Nath Pandey
Court No. - 55
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Arvind Srivastava along with Mr. Ram Milan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Uma Nath Pandey, learned Counsel for the respondents in both the Writ Petitions.
2. Both the writ petitions arises out of one Rent Control Case No.5 of 2005 between same parties as such both the writ petitions are clubbed and heard together.
3. Brief facts of the case are that dispute pertains to a shop situated at Mohalla-Baidhwada, Kasba, Pargana and Tehsil-Sikandarabad, District-Bulandshahar. Respondent-Ramesh Chand Sharma is landlord of aforementioned shop and petitioner-Ramautar is tenant of the aforementioned shop. The aforementioned shop was in the tenancy of the petitioner since 1977 @ Rs.600 per month. Respondent-landlord filed a Release Application under section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting, Rent and Eviction ) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as " U.P. Act No.13 of 1972"). The aforementioned Release Application was registered as Rent Control Case No.5 of 2015 before the prescribed authority, Bulandshahar. In the aforementioned case, petitioner-tenant filed his written statement on 19.4.2016 denying the bonafide need of landlord as setup in the release application. Respondent-landlord filed an application on 27.10.2018 and additional written statement has been filed in the aforementioned rent case by the tenant. Parties had adduced evidence in the shape of affidavits in the aforementioned rent control case. The prescribed authority vide judgement/order dated 26.3.2019 allowed the release application filed by landlord. Against the order of prescribed authority dated 26.3.2019, appeal under section 22 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed which was registered as rent appeal No. 9 of 2019. Appellate Court vide judgement dated 1.8.2023 dismissed the aforementioned rent control appeal filed by petitioner-tenant. Against the aforementioned order passed by appellate Court, petitioner-tenant filed a Writ A No.14840 of 2023 before this court which was allowed vide judgment dated 19.10.2023 directing the appellate Court to pass a fresh order in appeal strictly in accordance with law. In pursuance of the judgment/order of this court, the matter was proceeded before the appellate Court. During pendancy of the appeal written offer on behalf of landlord bearing paper 42-Ga dated 27.9.2018 was already on record for granting another shop to the petitioner in place of disputed shop. In pursuance of the aforementioned offer of the landlord, petitioner-tenant submitted his acceptance application dated 16.05.2024 (paper no.9-C/2) regarding shop No.3. On behalf of respondent-landlord, an objection 10-C/2 was filed. The appellate court after considering the application 9-C/2 an objection 10-C/2 fixed the appeal for hearing with observation that application 9-C/2 shall be considered at the time of hearing. Petitioner/tenant filed another application dated 16.5.2024 (paper No.11-C/2) offering the landlord that he will vacate the disputed shop for landlord provided landlord execute the sale-deed in favour of tenant in respect to shop No.3. Appellate Court again fixed 17.5.2024 for argument in appeal postponing the decision over application 11-C/2. Appellate Court finally vide judgment dated 31.1.2025 dismissed the appeal filed by petitioner-tenant. Hence Writ A No.2647 of 2025 on behalf of petitioner-tenant has been filed for the following relief :-
"I. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 31.01.2025 passed by Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court, Court No.3, Bulandhshahar in Misc. Case No. 328 of 2023/Rent Control Appeal No. 09 of 2019, (Ramautar Vs. Ramesh Chand Sharma) as well as the order dated 26.03.2019 passed by Prescribed Authority/Judge Small Causes, Bulandhshahar in Rent Case No. 05/2015, (Ramesh Chand Sharma Vs.Ramautar) (Annexure Nos. 1 and 2).
ii.issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent not to disposes the petitioner from disputed shop."
4. In pursuance of the order passed in rent control case No.5 of 2015, as well as in rent control appeal No.9 of 2019 another execution proceeding was initiated by the landlord, which was registered as Misc. Case No.80 of 2023. Petitioner-tenant filed an application under Order 21 Rule 26 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as C.P.C.) which was registered as paper No.27-C/2/. Respondent-landlord filed his objection (paper No.28-C/2) to the application 27-C/2 filed by tenant, Execution Court vide order dated 21.08.2025 rejected the application 27-C-2 filed by petitioner/ tenant and directed to take possession of disputed shop from the petitioner. Hence Writ A No.12907 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner/tenant for the following relief:
"i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Impugned order dated 21.08.2025 passed by Judge Small Causes, Bulandhshahar in Misc Case No. 80/2023, (Ramesh Chand Vs. Ramautar) (Annexure Nos, 1).
ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the learned court i.e. Judge Small Causes, Bulandhshahar not to proceed further in Misc Case No. 80/2023, (Ramesh Chand Vs. Ramautar) till, the final disposal of the Writ-A-No.2647 of 2025 (Ramautar Vs. Ramesh Chandra Sharma) pending before this Hon'ble Court."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that prescribed authority has decided the release application in ex-parte manner without affording proper opportunity of hearing to petitioner-tenant. He further submitted that in pursuance of the remand order passed by this court, the appellate Court has not exercised the appellate jurisdiction in proper manner as such order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that after remand order passed by this court, petitioner-tenant filed two applications 9-C/2 and 11-C/2 to settle the dispute accepting offer made by the landlord, but appellate court has not applied his mind in respect to the application 9-C/2 and 11-C/2 filed by the tenant. He further submitted that prescribed authority and appellate Court have not decided the bonafide need of the landlord in the light of evidence on record of the case. He submitted that finding regarding the availability of shop for the daughter of the landlord is also incorrect as during pendency of the proceeding another shop of the landlord was vacated by another tenant. He submitted that petitioner is 75 years old person as such it is difficult for him to take another shop on rent. He submitted that order passed in the execution proceeding initiated on the basis of the order passed in the release proceeding is also illegal. He submitted that impugned orders challenged in both the writ petitions should be set aside and release application filed by respondent-landlord should be rejected.
6. On the other hand, Mr Umanath Pandey, learned counsel for respondent-landlord submitted that petitioner-tenant has put in appearance in rent case on 30.5.2016 but he filed written statement after more than seven months i.e. 4.1.2017. He submitted that after filing of written statement petitioner-tenant was only interested in the adjournment of the proceeding which is very much demonstrated from the certified copy of the order sheet annexed as Annexure No.S.C.A.-1 and S.C.A.-2 to the short counter affidavit dated 11.3.2025. He further submitted that petitioner-tenant has adopted all possible lingering tactics in the aforementioned release proceeding. He submitted that sufficient time was given to petitioner by the prescribed authority but he deliberately sought adjournment, accordingly there was no option except to decide the matter on merit. He submitted that petitioner-tenant-defendant was having five shops, as such petitioner-tenant has no right to oppose the release application filed by respondent-landlord. He submitted that bonafide need set up by the respondent-landlord has been rightly allowed by the prescribed authority as such no interference is required against the impugned orders passed by prescribed authority/ appellate authority/Execution Court.
7. I have considered arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. There is no dispute about the fact that release application filed by respondent-landlord was allowed by the prescribed authority and order has been maintained in appeal. There is also no dispute about the fact that execution Court has rejected the objection of the petitioner and directed to take possession of the shop in question.
9. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter perusal of order sheet dated 25.3.2019 will be relevant, which is as under:-
"???????? ?????? ?????????, ??????????
?????? ??? ??????-05 ??? 2015
???? ???? ?????
????
???????
25.03.2019:
??? 10.30. 12.30. 2.30 ??? 4.00 ??? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ???????? ???????? ????????? ????????? ?
???????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ???????? ????? ?? ???????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????????? ????? ?? ???????? ?? ???????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ????????? ???????? ???????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?? ? ?? ?? ?? ??? 4.00 ??? ?? ???????? ??? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ???????? ??? ????????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ???????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?? ???? ??? ???????? ?????? ?????? ?????? 26.03.2019 ?? ??? ???
X ?????? ?????????, ??????????"
10. Perusal of three points of the determination framed in appeal filed by petitioner-tenant will be relevant which are as under:-
"??????? ??????
(1) ???? ??????????/???? ??? ?????????/ ??????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ? ????????? ?? ??????? ???
(2) ???? ???????? ????? ?? ??-?????? ?? ??????? ??? ???????? ???????? ???
(3) ????????? ??????? "
11. The appellate court while considering the three points of determination as quoted above has examined issue relating to landlord-tenant relationship, bonafide need of the landlord as well as comparative hardship of the parties in proper manner. Appellate Court has recorded the finding of fact that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between parties. The appellate Court has also recorded finding of fact that need setup by landlord is bonafide and comparative hardship is in favour of landlord in comparison to tenant as such there is no illegality in the order of release passed by prescribe authority.
12. On the question of bona-fide need of the landlord, the Apex 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."
13. Considering the ratio of law laid down by Apex Court in Kanahaiya Lal Arya (Supra) as well as finding recorded by the prescribed authority / appellate authority, there is no scope for interference against the impugned judgement / order passed by the Prescribed Authority and appellate Court in the proceeding under Section 21-(1) (a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972.
14. Considering the finding of fact recorded by the prescribed authority and appellate court in the proceeding under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P.Act No.13 of 1972, there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by execution court.
15. Both the writ petition are dismissed accordingly.
(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
October 10, 2025
PS*
