Rajesh Kumar Singh vs Distt. Judge

Rakesh Sharma, J.—Heard Sri H.A. B. Sinha, earned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

It emerges from record that the landlord-petitioner had filed an application for releasing the shops on 28.5.2004. The petitioner was owner of the house No. 2/24 situated at Mohalla Lolipurwa, Rajdhanl Marg, Shuklaganj, Post and P.S. Gangaghat, tehsil and district Unnao. The tenant was occupying two shops on the western side of the said house. The landlord had pleaded in the release application that he had a large family consisting of his wife, mother, one son and two daughters. The children of the petitioner are school-going and the daughter of the petitioner is of marriageable age. The landlord had no business of his own and he wanted to settle himself. The tenant was a resident of village Nanda Khera, where he and his son were carrying on the business of selling wood. They were also looking after their agricultural fields. The landlord had demonstrated in the release application that the tenant was not in bona fide need of the shops in question and they were unnecessarily occupied by him. The landlord was in urgent, bona fide need of the shops and the same should be released. This release application was submitted on 28.5.2004. The prescribed authority declined to release the shops in question and dismissed the application for release. The appellate authority, District Judge, Unnao, has also dismissed the appeal of the petitioner filed against the order of prescribed authority, vide his order dated 4.5.2006. The District Judge has observed in the judgment that there are three shops situate towards south of petitioner''s House No. 2/24 situate at Mohalla Lolipurwa, Rajdhani Marg, Shuklaganj, Post and P.S. Gangaghat, tehsil and district Unnao, which are in his possession, whereas the shops in dispute situate towards west of the said house. The prescribed authority and the District Judge, Unnao, had concluded that the petitioner could start his business from the said shops in his possession. The landlord has reacted to this observation of the learned court below showing that all the three shops situate towards south of his house are smaller in size and they were not suitable for his proposed business. The District Judge has indicated in the order "The size of the shops can be increased by removing the partition walls if the appellant really wants to start business and his need can be fulfilled.

I have gone through the material on record. The judgments and orders of the learned courts below are not in consonance with the modern trend of law in rent litigation. Here is a case where a landlord is having a large family consisting of his mother, wife and three children. The daughters of the petitioner are of marriageable age and he is requiring the two shops for running a business of selling building material to augment his income.

The learned courts below has excluded from consideration that there was a 11-months agreement between the parties. This material piece of evidence was ignored. Under law, both the parties are bound by the terms and condition of the agreement. The eleven months'' period stipulated in the agreement had already come to an end on 30.6.2006 and as per terms and condition of the said agreement he was required to vacate the premises.

The landlord is being asked to demolish the walls to make his shops larger in area. There may be a situation when the demolition of the partition walls may destroy the whole structure. This fact of demolition of walls was also not taken into account by the learned courts below. However, there is force in the submission of earned Counsel for the landlord that the tenant cannot dictate terms to landlord and advise him what he should do and what he should not. It is always the privilege of landlord to choose the nature and place of business. The present case is squarely covered by the latest decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India as in Sait Nagjee Purushotham and Co. Ltd. Vs. Vimalabai Prabhulal and Others, ; Kailash Chand and Another Vs. Dharam Das, Rakesh ViJ v. Dr. Raminder Pal Singh Sethi and Ors. (2005) 8 SCC 504 and Smt. G. Kaushalya Devi Vs. Ghanshyamdas,

The Courts have also ignored the fact that several commercial complexes have come up in Gangaghat area, i.e., Shukla Ganj locality. It is also evident that the tenant did not make any effort to search an alternative accommodation to run his business. This was sufficient to tilt the balance of comparative hardship against the tenant. Badrinarayan Chunilal Bhutada Vs. Govindram Ramgopal Mundada, and Hashmat Ali v. Vlth A.D.J., Kanpur Nagar and Ors. 2006 (1) ARC 65.

In view of above, prima facie I find that the impugned orders are erroneous in law. Now the Courts have entered into new era of rent laws. The case requires a fresh adjudication.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part at this admission stage. A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the judgment order dated 4.5.2006, contained in Annexure-1 to the petition. The matter is remanded to the District Judge, Unnao to consider the appeal of the petitioner afresh in the light of the observations made above and the decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India and this Court referred to above. The petitioner is free to make his submissions before the District Judge, Unnao. The appeal shall be disposed of within thirty days from the date a certified copy of this Judgment and order is produced before the District Judge.