High Court

authority affirming the same in all the three petitions has been challenged.

3. The main argument that has been advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners on the point of bona fide need is that both the Prescribed Authority as well as appellate authority has manifestly erred in ignoring the pleadings raised by the tenant petitioners that there was sufficient alternative accommodation available to the landlord which if had been properly appreciated and discussed would have rendered the need set up by the landlord for personal need to be not a bona fide one. It is submitted that in the first instance landlord respondent was already having his Advocate chamber in house No. 25/41, Karachi Khana, Kanpur Nagar in respect of which municipal records sufficiently disclose that his status was of owner-in-possession and, therefore, the plea taken by landlord that he had been occupying the premises in the status of licensee and had been issued with the notice by the licensor of the building to vacate the same was absolutely unsustainable. It is next submitted that the landlord respondent was already having flats in Gulmohar Apartments and further an additional accommodation in the form of flat in Harihar Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Kanpur Nagar which showed that petitioner had sufficient alternative accommodation where he could have shifted his chamber. It is also submitted that the petitioner was already residing in a building which was a double storied building and he having attained the age of 64 years on the date of filing of the release application and was since having no son living with him, he would have easily shifted his chamber in that building and that would have suited him also considering his age.

4. It is also argued that sufficient evidence was on record to the effect that the shops situate in such a locality of Meston Road of Kanpur Nagar which is highly congested one with roads are not wide enough to park vehicle, which is a must in the event an Advocate runs a chamber. It is thus, contended that all these pleadings that have been raised sufficiently in the written objection filed as well as evidence led have not been appreciated properly and certain documents have been misread while arriving at a finding that release application was filed for a bona fide personal need set up by landlord respondent to grant the same.

5. Meeting the above submissions, learned Advocate appearing for landlord respondent Ms. Rama Goel Bansal vehemently urged that the entire pleadings as have been raised in the written objection were absolutely denied in the replication which was very much on record but tenant petitioner has not filed the same. She also submitted that an affidavit was filed absolutely denying the facts pleaded by the petitioner that respondent was having any flat in Gulmohar Apartment. It was further submitted by Ms. Goel that the flat which was admitted to the landlord to be owned by him was in Harihar Nagar, Shastri Nagar and was already let out. It is also argued by Ms. Goel that there was no municipal record to demonstrate that respondent was title holder of the property, more so claim set up by respondent being owner of the property was sufficiently rebutted by producing the receipts of municipality which showed petitioner to be only having possessory right. It is contended by Ms. Goel that sale deed was also filed in respect of property being No. 25/41 Karachi Khana, Kanpur to be owned by three-four individuals who had jointly executed a sale deed on

10.02.2023 in respect of a part of the building in favour of a third party and it was in that sale deed that they had declared themselves to be owner of the property. It is urged that this above pleading have not been denied, inasmuch as no material much less a substantial one was led before the prescribed authority or at the stage of appellate authority by the tenant petitioner to demonstrate that respondent owned certain more properties to the one for release of which, landlord had applied so as to hold that the landlord respondent was having sufficient accommodation to shift chamber in that place. It is also argued that the age cannot be a ground by itself to dislodge and non-suit the landlord if he sets up personal need to set up a lawyer's chamber. It is also argued that the findings returned by both the prescribed authority as well as by the appellate authority are based on sound reasonings and material appreciated which may not warrant any interference by this Court in its superintendence jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

6. Having heard learned counsel for respective parties and having perused the records, insofar as the findings on the bona fide need is concerned, I find that the Prescribed Authority has sufficiently discussed the material placed before it by rival parties. The court recorded a cogent finding to the effect that house No. 25/41 Karachi Khana, Kanpur was shown to have been owned by certain individual persons as they had themselves executed sale deed in respect of a part thereof on 10.02.2023. Counsel for respondent has vehemently urged that in municipal records showed respondent to be owner in possession of the part of the building in which he was running chamber but could not dispute the sale deed. Upon a pointed query being made to Mr. Ashish Kumar Singh, as to what is the material to rebut the registered sale deed in respect of which a valid presumption was liable to be raised, Mr. Singh, submits that there is not denial as to the existence of the sale deed, however, he reiterated the point that the municipal records were virtually misread.

7. I have gone through the findings of the Prescribed Authority as to the assessment of municipal records and I find that the Prescribed Authority has discussed also the receipts that were placed before it regarding the house No. 25/41. In such a situation where the contrary evidence has been produced as to the municipal records the prescribed authority was justified in holding that such material cannot be taken as sufficient evidence to prove a title. The prescribed authority, therefore, rightly held that the municipal records by itself cannot be indicative of the valid title of the possession of person who has the possession of premises in question. Insofar as the flat in Harihar Nagar, Shastri Nagar is concerned, I find that in the affidavit filed before the prescribed authority it was clearly stated that the said flat had already been let out to another person. Mr. Ashish Kumar Singh, has admitted that there is no dispute regarding the flat having already been let out, however regarding other three flats, he submitted that there was no finding. I find that there to be a complete denial in the replication copy of which has been placed before me by the learned counsel appearing for respondent landlord, as to the ownership of any such flat but also at the same time, I equally find that the lower appellate authority has come to record finding to the effect that there is absolute denial of the ownership. Upon a pointed query being made as to whether there is any document available or has been filed in this petition so as to be suggestive of any valid title of any of the three flats of which reference has been made in the written objection, counsel for petitioner could not point out any such material.

8. In such above view of the matter, therefore, the findings arrived by the Prescribed Authority except for residential accommodation and a flat which has already been let out by the landlord respondent, landlord had no alternative accommodation to house the chamber cannot be held to be perverse one. Even otherwise the legal position is very much clear on the point that it is landlord choice to establish business and to decide to use a particular building or particular portion of the building and utility thereof has to be taken from the point of view of the landlord only. The tenant cannot even suggest as to whether the landlord as arrived at such an age the he is supposed to run chamber at home. The suggestion also at to he congestion of road where the building in question situates cannot of course, be a ground to dislodge the landlord in case for release filed by him the landlord being sole arbitor of his need.

9. In such above view of the matter, therefore, I do not find the findings arrived at by the Prescribed Authority affirmed in appeal to be suffering from any manifest error of law or fact. The release ordered by the Prescribed Authority affirmed in appeal is accordingly upheld.

10. All the petitions being devoid of merits, are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Order Date :- 24.1.2025 Nadeem

authority affirming the same in all the three petitions has been challenged.

3. The main argument that has been advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners on the point of bona fide need is that both the Prescribed Authority as well as appellate authority has manifestly erred in ignoring the pleadings raised by the tenant petitioners that there was sufficient alternative accommodation available to the landlord which if had been properly appreciated and discussed would have rendered the need set up by the landlord for personal need to be not a bona fide one. It is submitted that in the first instance landlord respondent was already having his Advocate chamber in house No. 25/41, Karachi Khana, Kanpur Nagar in respect of which municipal records sufficiently disclose that his status was of owner-in-possession and, therefore, the plea taken by landlord that he had been occupying the premises in the status of licensee and had been issued with the notice by the licensor of the building to vacate the same was absolutely unsustainable. It is next submitted that the landlord respondent was already having flats in Gulmohar Apartments and further an additional accommodation in the form of flat in Harihar Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Kanpur Nagar which showed that petitioner had sufficient alternative accommodation where he could have shifted his chamber. It is also submitted that the petitioner was already residing in a building which was a double storied building and he having attained the age of 64 years on the date of filing of the release application and was since having no son living with him, he would have easily shifted his chamber in that building and that would have suited him also considering his age.

4. It is also argued that sufficient evidence was on record to the effect that the shops situate in such a locality of Meston Road of Kanpur Nagar which is highly congested one with roads are not wide enough to park vehicle, which is a must in the event an Advocate runs a chamber. It is thus, contended that all these pleadings that have been raised sufficiently in the written objection filed as well as evidence led have not been appreciated properly and certain documents have been misread while arriving at a finding that release application was filed for a bona fide personal need set up by landlord respondent to grant the same.

5. Meeting the above submissions, learned Advocate appearing for landlord respondent Ms. Rama Goel Bansal vehemently urged that the entire pleadings as have been raised in the written objection were absolutely denied in the replication which was very much on record but tenant petitioner has not filed the same. She also submitted that an affidavit was filed absolutely denying the facts pleaded by the petitioner that respondent was having any flat in Gulmohar Apartment. It was further submitted by Ms. Goel that the flat which was admitted to the landlord to be owned by him was in Harihar Nagar, Shastri Nagar and was already let out. It is also argued by Ms. Goel that there was no municipal record to demonstrate that respondent was title holder of the property, more so claim set up by respondent being owner of the property was sufficiently rebutted by producing the receipts of municipality which showed petitioner to be only having possessory right. It is contended by Ms. Goel that sale deed was also filed in respect of property being No. 25/41 Karachi Khana, Kanpur to be owned by three-four individuals who had jointly executed a sale deed on

10.02.2023 in respect of a part of the building in favour of a third party and it was in that sale deed that they had declared themselves to be owner of the property. It is urged that this above pleading have not been denied, inasmuch as no material much less a substantial one was led before the prescribed authority or at the stage of appellate authority by the tenant petitioner to demonstrate that respondent owned certain more properties to the one for release of which, landlord had applied so as to hold that the landlord respondent was having sufficient accommodation to shift chamber in that place. It is also argued that the age cannot be a ground by itself to dislodge and non-suit the landlord if he sets up personal need to set up a lawyer's chamber. It is also argued that the findings returned by both the prescribed authority as well as by the appellate authority are based on sound reasonings and material appreciated which may not warrant any interference by this Court in its superintendence jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

6. Having heard learned counsel for respective parties and having perused the records, insofar as the findings on the bona fide need is concerned, I find that the Prescribed Authority has sufficiently discussed the material placed before it by rival parties. The court recorded a cogent finding to the effect that house No. 25/41 Karachi Khana, Kanpur was shown to have been owned by certain individual persons as they had themselves executed sale deed in respect of a part thereof on 10.02.2023. Counsel for respondent has vehemently urged that in municipal records showed respondent to be owner in possession of the part of the building in which he was running chamber but could not dispute the sale deed. Upon a pointed query being made to Mr. Ashish Kumar Singh, as to what is the material to rebut the registered sale deed in respect of which a valid presumption was liable to be raised, Mr. Singh, submits that there is not denial as to the existence of the sale deed, however, he reiterated the point that the municipal records were virtually misread.

7. I have gone through the findings of the Prescribed Authority as to the assessment of municipal records and I find that the Prescribed Authority has discussed also the receipts that were placed before it regarding the house No. 25/41. In such a situation where the contrary evidence has been produced as to the municipal records the prescribed authority was justified in holding that such material cannot be taken as sufficient evidence to prove a title. The prescribed authority, therefore, rightly held that the municipal records by itself cannot be indicative of the valid title of the possession of person who has the possession of premises in question. Insofar as the flat in Harihar Nagar, Shastri Nagar is concerned, I find that in the affidavit filed before the prescribed authority it was clearly stated that the said flat had already been let out to another person. Mr. Ashish Kumar Singh, has admitted that there is no dispute regarding the flat having already been let out, however regarding other three flats, he submitted that there was no finding. I find that there to be a complete denial in the replication copy of which has been placed before me by the learned counsel appearing for respondent landlord, as to the ownership of any such flat but also at the same time, I equally find that the lower appellate authority has come to record finding to the effect that there is absolute denial of the ownership. Upon a pointed query being made as to whether there is any document available or has been filed in this petition so as to be suggestive of any valid title of any of the three flats of which reference has been made in the written objection, counsel for petitioner could not point out any such material.

8. In such above view of the matter, therefore, the findings arrived by the Prescribed Authority except for residential accommodation and a flat which has already been let out by the landlord respondent, landlord had no alternative accommodation to house the chamber cannot be held to be perverse one. Even otherwise the legal position is very much clear on the point that it is landlord choice to establish business and to decide to use a particular building or particular portion of the building and utility thereof has to be taken from the point of view of the landlord only. The tenant cannot even suggest as to whether the landlord as arrived at such an age the he is supposed to run chamber at home. The suggestion also at to he congestion of road where the building in question situates cannot of course, be a ground to dislodge the landlord in case for release filed by him the landlord being sole arbitor of his need.

9. In such above view of the matter, therefore, I do not find the findings arrived at by the Prescribed Authority affirmed in appeal to be suffering from any manifest error of law or fact. The release ordered by the Prescribed Authority affirmed in appeal is accordingly upheld.

10. All the petitions being devoid of merits, are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Order Date :- 24.1.2025 Nadeem