Nand Kishor Saravagi vs Rajendra Mohan Bohre

Heard Sri Vivek Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 30.03.2007 passed by Prescribed Authority allowing applicant of respondentlandlord filed under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") for release of shop in question and ejectment of petitionertenant on the ground of personal need and the order dated 10.07.2012 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Jhansi.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that firstly there was no valid partition amongst the family members of landlord which could have shown that property in dispute fell in his share, therefore, he was not the sole owner of property in dispute but this aspect has not been validly considered by courts below. He further submitted that there was another plot available to the landlord but the same was leased out to somebody else, i.e., one Khalil whereupon the landlord can set up furniture business of his son.

So far as first aspect is concerned, both the courts below have held that firstly the tenant cannot assail the partition made by landlord particularly when relationship of landlord and tenant are not in dispute; and, secondly, there was a compromise decree dated 12.10.2003 in Original Suit No. 387 of 2002 showing partition by way of compromise in aforesaid suit and, therefore, also the claim setup by tenant was not acceptable.

So far as second submission is concerned, both the courts below have found that it was not the building which was let out to another person, namely, Khalil but an open land for the purpose of furniture making and in respect thereto also a suit for eviction is pending. Further it is the discretion of the landlord to decide which place is more suitable for his own need.

These findings have not been shown perverse or contrary to record. Both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings that personal need of landlord has been proved bona fide and genuine and comparative hardship also lies in his favour. These findings have not been shown perverse of that any manifest error of law has been committed by courts below warranting interference under Article 226/227 of the Constitution.

The scope of judicial review in these matters under Article 226/227 is very limited and narrow as discussed in detail by this court in Writ Petition No. 11365 of 1998 (Jalil Ahmad Vs. 16th Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and others), decided on 30.07.2012. There is nothing which may justify judicial review of orders impugned in this writ petition in the light of exposition of law, as discussed in the above judgment.

Dismissed.