Allahabad High Court

Smt. Jaimurti Devi vs Sohan Lal Chaurasiya on 15 September, 2025





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:163515
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 10092 of 2025   
 
   Smt. Jaimurti Devi    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   Sohan Lal Chaurasiya    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Pushpendra Kumar Mishra, Sonal Bharti   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
Vikash Chandra Tiwari   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 37
 
   
 
 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Ms. Sonal Bharti Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner/ tenant, Mr G.C. Tiwari, learned counsel holding brief of Mr Vikas Chandra Tiwari learned counsel for respondent/landlord.

2. Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to shop situated at Mohalla Khojwan Bazar, Gandhi Chowk, Police Station-Bhelupur, Ward Bhelupur, District-Varanasi. The petitioner is tenant of the shop and respondent is the landlord of the shop in question. Landlord /respondent 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") for release of the shop in question, which was registered as P.A. Case No.15 of 2016. Petitioner/ tenant contested the release application on the ground that the need setup by the landlord is not bona-fide as the accommodation in the same building is lying vacant and available for the landlord. In the aforementioned P.A. Case No.15 of 2016 Issues were framed by the prescribed authority. Prescribed authority by the judgement / order dated 11.02.2025 allowed the release application. Against the order of the prescribed authority dated 11.02.2025, petitioner/ tenant filed an appeal under Section 22 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 which was registered as P.A. Appeal No.66 of 2025 before Additional District Judge/Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Court No.4, Varanasi. The aforementioned appeal has been dismissed vide order dated 30.05.2025. Hence this instant petition for the following relief:

"Issue necessary direction to set aside the impugned order dated 30.05.2025 passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Court No.4 Varanasi in P.A. Appeal No.66 of 2025 Smt. Jaimurati Devi Vs. Sohan Sohan Lal Churasiya (Annexure No.1 to the petition).

ii. issue necessary direction to set aside the impugned order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Varanasi in P.A. Suit No.15 of 2016: Sohan Lal Chaurasiya Vs. Smnt. Jaimurti Devi (Annexure No.2 to the petition)."

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the prescribed authority releasing the shop in question in favour of the landlord is wholly illegal as the need setup by the landlord was not bona-fide. He further submitted that landlord had filed a release application no.15 of 2016 on the basis of same need which was not pressed by the landlord, as such, the application for release filed by the landlord cannot be allowed. He further submitted that the appellate Court has also committed an error in deciding the appeal under Section 22 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 without considering the points setup in appeal. He further submitted that both the impugned judgement should be set aside and application for release filed by the respondent/ landlord should be rejected.

4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents/ landlord submitted that the release application filed by the respondents/ landlord has been rightly allowed by the prescribed authority considering the bona-fide need of the landlord in proper manner. He further submitted that the appeal filed by the petitioner / tenant has also been dismissed considering the each and every aspect of the matter, as such, no interference is required against the concurrent judgement passed by the prescribed authority as well as appellate authority in respect to the proceeding under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. He further submitted that the prescribed authority has framed three issues in the proceeding under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 and recorded the finding of fact that there was relationship of landlord / tenant between the parties as well as the need setup by the landlord is bona-fide coupled with the fact that the comparative hardship is in favour of the landlord in comparison to tenant. He further submitted that the finding of fact recorded by the prescribed authority has been further examined by the appellate Court and it has been held that there was proper consideration of the case regarding bona-fide need of the landlord with respect to the shop in question. He further submitted that no interference is required in the matter and Writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner is tenant of the shop in question and respondent is landlord of the same. There is also no dispute about the fact that proceeding under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 initiated by the respondents/ landlord was allowed by the prescribed authority and appeal under Section 22 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 filed by the petitioner/ tenant has been dismissed by the appellate Court / Additional District Judge.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of all the three issues framed by the prescribed authority in the proceeding for release in respect to shop in question will be relevant, which are as under:

"1. ???????? ???????? ?????? ?????? 1:-

?? ???????? ?????? ?????? 1 ?? ???????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ???? ? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ? ????????? ?? ??????? ???

2. ???????? ???????? ?????? ?????? 2:-

?? ???????? ?????? ?????? 2 ?? ???????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???????? ????? ?? ?????? ???????? ?? ?

3. ???????? ???????? ?????? ?????? 3:?

?? ???????? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?? ????????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ???"

8. The prescribed authority has considered the all the three issues framed in the release proceeding in light of the evidence adduced by the parties and recorded a categorical finding of fact that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the need set up by landlord for the business of his son Manoj Kumar is bonafide. The finding of fact has also been recorded by prescribed authority on comparative hardship that comparative hardship is in fav our of landlord in comparison to tenant.

9. Appellate Court has also framed the point of determination in appeal and again examined the matter in proper manner in respect to bonafide need of landlord and comparative ship of the parties while passing the impugned judgment.

10. 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."

11. 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.

12. Considering the finding of fact recorded by the prescribed authority and appellate court, no interference is required against the impugned judgment passed in the proceeding under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P.Act No.13 of 1972.

13. The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India 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 this judgment.