28 March 2022 3:30 PM GMT
The Allahabad High Court has observed that in rent disputes, it is no concern of the Courts to dictate to the landlord how, and in what manner, he/she should live or prescribe for him/her a residential standard of their own.Referring to the Apex Court's ruling in the case of Prativa Devi (Smt.) Vs. T.V. Krishnan 1996 (5) SCC 353, the Bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal also stressed that...
The Allahabad High Court has observed that in rent disputes, it is no concern of the Courts to dictate to the landlord how, and in what manner, he/she should live or prescribe for him/her a residential standard of their own.
Referring to the Apex Court's ruling in the case of Prativa Devi (Smt.) Vs. T.V. Krishnan 1996 (5) SCC 353, the Bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal also stressed that the landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement and that there is no law that deprives the landlord of beneficial enjoyment of his/her property.
The HC observed thus as it dismissed a writ plea moved by a Lawyer/Tenant against the ordered of the Prescribed Authority/Additional District Judge allowing the release application of the respondents/landlord.
The facts in brief
Essentially, the landlord-respondents no.1 to 3 filed a Rent Case under Section 21(1)(a) of The U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 for releasing the accommodation in dispute which is a residential portion purchased by the landlord-respondents in 2006 from its previous owner.
The landlord sought the release of the petitioner/Tenant-lawyer from the accommodation in question on the ground that their family was growing up, and therefore, there stood personal need for the landlord and their family members, as each one of them required separate room for living.
On the other hand, the tenant-petitioner contested the said release application by arguing that there existed no need of the landlord and that they were having other accommodation, wherein their needs could be satisfied.
The trial Court found that the need of the landlord-respondents was not genuine and bona fide and the comparative hardship tilted in favour of the tenant and therefore, the release application of the landlord was rejected. Against this, the landlord-respondents moved a rent appeal which was allowed.
Now against the order in the rent appeal, the tenant-petitioner/lawyer moved to the High Court with his Writ plea.
It was his specific plea that the landlord-respondents were having number of alternate accommodation with them in the city of Badaun, wherein their need could be satisfied and this fact was ignored in the rent appeal by the Prescribed Authority/Additional District Judge.
At the outset, the Court noted that the appellate Court had recorded a categorical finding to the effect that landlord-respondents were in fact, not having any alternative accommodation in their exclusive possession.
The Court also took into account the fact that the alternative accommodation brought on record by the tenant-petitioner was, in fact, in the exclusive ownership of the father of the landlord-respondents and one of the accommodation was under the dispute.
Further, the Court also referred to an array of judgments of the Apex Court to stress upon the scope of bona fide and genuine need of a landlord. The Court also udnerscored that in such cases, a balance should be maintained between the need of a tenant and the landlord.
Against this backdrop, having analysed the judgment of the appellate Court, the Court came to the conclusion that the appellate Court had dealt with the matter as regards the alternate accommodation alleged to be with the landlord-respondents by the tenant.
"The appellate Court had recorded specific finding on each aspect and found the need of the landlordrespondents to be genuine and bona fide as the family are growing up and consisted of 9 members, while in his possession only the western portion of the accommodation which was purchased in the year 2013 was there and accommodation was needed for the family members. The finding recorded by the Court below is the finding of fact which needs no interference by this Court," the Court observed as it DISMISSED the writ plea while underscoring that the comparative hardship tilted in favour of the landlords.
However, considering the facts and circumstances the facts that the tenant-petitioner is a practising lawyer at Badaun and residing in the disputed accommodation since long, the Court granted him six months' time to vacate the premises in question with certain conditions.
Case title - Gopal Krishna Shankdhar @ Krishna Gopal Shankdhar v. Shri Manoj Kumar Agarwal And 2 OthersCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 142
Click Here To Read/Download Order