High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 18 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2890 of 2019 Petitioner :- Laldhar Mishra And 2 Others Respondent :- Smt. Neha Verma Counsel for Petitioner :- Badri Nath Tripathi,Hridai Narayan Sharma,Rang Nath Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- J.B. Singh,Atul Dayal,Ayush Khanna Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. Heard Sri H.N.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Atul Dayal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Prakash Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the contesting respondent. By means of present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have sought to invoke extra ordinary supervisory jurisdiction of this Court seeking to set aside the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 30th October, 2018 as well as the order passed by the appellate authority dated 12th March, 2019 in rent appeal no. 18 of 2018. For assailing the order passed by the Prescribed Authority in appeal, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the findings returned by the Prescribed Authority on the point of bona fide need and comparative hardships are
Legal Reasoning
against the law. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that proper appreciation of evidence on record as well as pleadings have not been taken place while determining the points in favour of the land lord respondent. It is also argued that there was building purchased by the land lord in which there was number of shop in occupation of the land lord and all these facts have not been given due consideration on the point of bona fide need otherwise this point would not have determined in favour of the land lord respondent. It is argued that the comparative hardships weighed more in favour of the petitioner as he had no other source of income except the Ayurvedic medicine business that was being run in the shop in the question. Per contra, the argument advanced by learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the land lord respondent is that all these arguments that purchase of a building having more accommodations in the form of shops have not been led anywhere either before the Prescribed Authority or the appellate court nor, any such pleading had been raised that those shops were lying vacant wherein the land lord respondent could have started business to attend the need for which he had filed the release application. It is also argued that findings returned by the Prescribed Authority on the point of bona fide need is based on cogent and convincing evidence led and the pleadings raised. However, he submits that even if those documents are taken into consideration regarding shops in the purchased building, he submits that in those shops his brothers were already in occupation as they were doing business. So for purpose of personal need which was genuine and bona fide one, the landlord respondent absolutely needed the shop for the business to be run by her husband. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and their arguments raised across the bar and having gone through the pleadings rasied here before this Court, also memo of appeal and judgments impugned herein this petition before this Court, I find that on point of bona fide need the Prescribed Authority has recorded a categorical finding that the landlord's husband was doing business in some rented accommodation on the ground floor of a building and that he was not earning more than Rs. ten thousand, which was not sufÏcient enough for the survival of the family as two children of the family were studying in different classes and expenses were to be incurred upon their studies. It is also observed, giving due consideration to facts, by the Prescribed Authority that most of the members of the family of the tenant respondent were all settled as defendant no. 1 had an employment, defendant no. 3 having been married was living at her in-laws place, so there was no such need of the tenant respondent in respect of shop in question as compared to the land lord's need. The Prescribed Authority also recorded a finding to the effect that the pleadings as sought to be raised by the tenant respondent that he was having resident in same nearby building and, therefore, it was convenient for him to run business of Ayurvedic Medicine from this shop itself was not worth believing as nothing had been demonstrated by leading any evidence that he had any such residence in a building situate at nearby location. Besides the above, Prescribed Authority proceeded to hold by relying upon the judgments of this Court that every individual has right to engage himself and expand his business and increase the income. On a pointed query being made to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how this finding returned by the prescribed authority be held to be flawed one, learned counsel for the petitioner could not cite any pleading either from the written statement or from the evidence that were on record available before the Prescribed Authority or in appeal. He merely stated that there were only four persons in the family and Rs. 10,000/- was sufÏcient enough for the survival of family. In my considered view, the land lord is the sole arbiter to decide his priorities; what business to run, how to run and where to run. If he has accommodation in his own building or even otherwise in any portion, it is well within his right to chose from which part or portion of the tenanted accommodation or building, it would be proper to run business. In the case of Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta (1999) 6 SCC 222, the Supreme Court relied upon the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Damodar Sharma v. Nandram Deviram, AIR 1960 MP 345 (FB) with approval wherein it was held that the landlord was a sole arbiter of his own requirements and what was required on his part was to prove that he wanted the accommodation genuinely. In the case of Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery & Co (2000) 1 SCC 679, the Court reiterated its earlier decision in the case of Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan (1996) 5 SCC 353 in holding that landlord is the best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he had got complete freedom in the matter. Yet in another case Sait Nagjee Purushotham and Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal (2005) 8 SCC 252, wherein High Court had accepted the plea of the tenant that one of the applicants had settled down in the America so there was no such bona fide need inasmuch as the sons were already in multifarious activities and therefore, the need of the landlord to be not bona fide, the Supreme Court while setting aside the order of the High Court observed "we fail to appreciate that when two sons are there and if they want to expand their business for the landlords and their sons to wait till the disposal of the case. They have to do something in life and they cannot wait till the appellant is evicted from the premises in question". In the case of Prativa Devi (supra) the Supreme Court held that bona fide personal need is a question of fact and, therefore, such finding should not be normally interfered with. The only question is that the need set up must be honest and not tainted with any oblique motive as held in the case of G.C. Kapoor v. Nand Kumar Bhasin (2002) 1 SCC 610. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, need setup by the land lord for settling her husband to do a kind of business by which they could fetch more income, appears to be quite genuine and bona fide one. Once the bona fide need has come to be established by the land respondent, finding returned by the Prescribed Authority on the question of comparative hardship cannot be faulted with. The argument that before the court of appeal a plea was taken that land lord had more accommodation and there were shops but nothing bornes out from the memo of appeal as such, which may establish that there were vacant shops available to the land lord. Besides the above the document that had been led in appeal could have been read in evidence provided they were led in accordance with law and had been admitted as such at the stage of appeal. No ground or pleading raised before this Court can substitute that lacunae that were there in the objection filed before the Prescribed Authority. In such above view of the matter, therefore, I do not find any fault error much less a manifest one in the judgment, passed by the Prescribed Authority and appellate authority. Accordingly, no case is made out for interference in exercise of my supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. This petition lacks merit and so is dismissed with no order as to cost. Order Date :- 16.11.2022/Sanjeev Digitally signed by SANJEEV RANJAN Date: 2022.11.22 09:58:20 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad