Mohammad Nasir and others v. Smt. Mumtaz and others) as well as the impugned Judgement and order dated

Petitioner :- Smt. Mumtaz And 6 Others Respondent :- Smt. Noorjahan And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jahnavi Singh,Kauntey Singh,Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi Counsel for Respondent :- Jitendra Kumar,Prasoon Tomar Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

1. Heard Sri Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel for respondents.

2. Brief facts of case at that proceeding under Section Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 herein after referred to as U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was initiated at the instance of landlord. The proceeding was registered as Case No. 270 of 2021. Issues were framed in the aforesaid proceedings by the Prescribed authority/Civil Judge Junior Division, Bijnor and vide judgment and order dated 2.8.2023, the release application filed under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was allowed directing the petitioners/tenants to handover the peaceful possession of the shop in question to the landlord within a period of two months as well as further direction was issued for payment of Rs. 30,000/- by the tenant to the landlord. Against the judgment order of Prescribed authority dated 02.08.2023, appeal was filed by the petitioners/tenants, which was registered as rent control appeal No. 68 of 2023 before Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Bijnor. The point of determination were framed in appeal. Appellate Court vide judgment dated 26.05.2025 dismissed the appeal filed by petitioners/tenants. Hence, this writ petition on behalf of tenants for following reliefs:- "a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 02.08.2023 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Prescribed Authority, Bijnor in P.A. Case No. 195 of 2020 (New No. 270 of 2021) Mohammad Nasir and others Versus Smt. Mumtaz and others) as well as the impugned Judgement and order dated 26.05.2025 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Bijnor in Rent Control Appeal No. 68 of 2023 (Smt. Mumtaz and others Versus Smt. Noorjahan and others) Annexure No. 1 and 2 to the writ petition. b) Issue any order or direction which this Ho'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. c) Award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioners."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that impugned judgments passed by the Prescribed authority as well as the appellate Court are wholly illegal as the Act of 13 of the 1972 is not applicable in respect to shop in question. He further submitted that perverse finding was recorded by the trial Court and the appellate Court has failed to frame the proper point for determination in appeal. He next submitted that appellate Court has not considered the bonafide need of the landlord and dismissed the appeal filed by petitioners. He submitted that provisions has mentioned in Section 21(i) (a) of the Act No. 13 of 1972 to give notice before six months of filing release application has not been followed, as such the entire proceedings initiated by landlord suffers from manifest error of law. He further submitted that Prescribed authority has recorded the finding in arbitrary manner that tenants/petitioners did not produce any evidence in respect to the business going on in the shop in dispute. He further submitted that petitioners/tenants have paid Rs, 35,400/- to landlord as arrears of rent, as such it cannot be said that tenants/petitioners are not doing any business in the shop in dispute. He submitted that Prescribed authority has also not considered the bonafide need of landlord in proper manner, as such both the judgments are liable to be set aside and release application filed by the landlord should be rejected.

4. On the other hand, Sri Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel for respondent submitted that concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by the Prescribed authority and the appellate Court, as such no interference is required in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He further placed the issues framed before the Prescribed authority and the findings recorded by the Prescribed authority in order to demonstrates that Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable in this matter and there are bonafide need of landlord for the release the shop in question. He next submitted that appeal was decided in proper manner by the appellate Court affirming the finding of trial Court, as such no further interference is required in the matter.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. There is no dispute about the fact that proceeding under Section 21(1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was initiated by the landlord/respondents, which was decided in favour of landlord and order has been maintained in appeal.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of the issues framed before the Prescribed authority will be relevant which are as under:- कयय पशगत समपतत कक बयवत पयरर एवव ववपकक कक मधय मकयनदयर "(1) ददकयन मयतलक) ( एवव वकरययकदयर कय सवबवध हह? कयय पशगत समपतत कक बयवत पयरर कक आवशयकतय सदयवक, ममतलक (2) एवव वयसतववक हह? (3) कयय पशगत समपतत कक पयरर कक पक मम अवमदक वकयक जयनक सक ववपकक कक तदलनयतमक कवठनयई अतधक हकगक अरवय पशगत समपतत कक पयरर कक पक मम अवमदक न वकयक जयनक सक तदलनयतमक कवठनयई पयरर कक अतधक हकगक?"

8. The Prescribed authority has decided three issues framed in P.A. Case No. 270 of 2021 recording findings of fact to the effect that Act No. 13 of 1972 is applicable and there was bonafide need of the landlord for the release of shop in question. The appellate Court has also framed the point of determination in rent control appeal and decided the appeal in proper manner under the impugned judgment/order dated 02.05.2025.

9. The appellate court has rightly exercised the appellate jurisdiction considering the evidence of both the parties.

10. This Court in the case reported in 2001(1) RCR (Rent) 687, Ashok Kersarwani vs. Lalta Prasad has held that need of landlord shall not be refused on the ground that tenant has no alternative accommodation. Paragraph No.12 of the judgment rendered in Ashok Kesarwanti (supra) will be relevant for perusal which is as under:- "12.The appellate authority had also considered the comparative hardships of the parties. The contention of the tenant was that he has no alternative accommodation to shift his business, but on this ground, the hardships of tenant cannot be said greater than that of landlord, as It was held by the Apex Court in the case of Gega Begum v. Abdul Ahad 1986 SCFBRC 346, that if requirement for the house was found to be bona fide and genuine, then the landlord cannot be denied the eviction simply because the tenant had no alternative accommodation available. The tenant always suffers some sort of hardship on eviction, but that does not mean that he cannot be evicted even ff the landlord genuinely and bona fide required the premises. In this way, there is no ground to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the appellate authority on bona fide need of the landlord and comparative hardship."

11. Considering the findings of fact recorded by this Prescribed authority and appellate Court, there is no scope for interference by this Court to disturb the findings of fact recorded by Prescribed authority and appellate Court.

12. The writ petition is dismissed. However, petitioners/tenants are granted six months to vacate the shop in question provided that petitioners/tenants shall file undertaking before Prescribed authority that he will handover peaceful possession of shop in question to the landlord within a period of six months from today. Petitioners/tenants shall pay the monthly rent of the shop in question to the landlord for the period, they will be in possession of the shop in question as directed above. Order Date :- 6.8.2025 Neetu NEETU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Petitioner :- Smt. Mumtaz And 6 Others Respondent :- Smt. Noorjahan And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jahnavi Singh,Kauntey Singh,Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi Counsel for Respondent :- Jitendra Kumar,Prasoon Tomar Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

1. Heard Sri Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel for respondents.

2. Brief facts of case at that proceeding under Section Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 herein after referred to as U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was initiated at the instance of landlord. The proceeding was registered as Case No. 270 of 2021. Issues were framed in the aforesaid proceedings by the Prescribed authority/Civil Judge Junior Division, Bijnor and vide judgment and order dated 2.8.2023, the release application filed under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was allowed directing the petitioners/tenants to handover the peaceful possession of the shop in question to the landlord within a period of two months as well as further direction was issued for payment of Rs. 30,000/- by the tenant to the landlord. Against the judgment order of Prescribed authority dated 02.08.2023, appeal was filed by the petitioners/tenants, which was registered as rent control appeal No. 68 of 2023 before Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Bijnor. The point of determination were framed in appeal. Appellate Court vide judgment dated 26.05.2025 dismissed the appeal filed by petitioners/tenants. Hence, this writ petition on behalf of tenants for following reliefs:- "a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 02.08.2023 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Prescribed Authority, Bijnor in P.A. Case No. 195 of 2020 (New No. 270 of 2021) Mohammad Nasir and others Versus Smt. Mumtaz and others) as well as the impugned Judgement and order dated 26.05.2025 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Bijnor in Rent Control Appeal No. 68 of 2023 (Smt. Mumtaz and others Versus Smt. Noorjahan and others) Annexure No. 1 and 2 to the writ petition. b) Issue any order or direction which this Ho'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. c) Award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioners."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that impugned judgments passed by the Prescribed authority as well as the appellate Court are wholly illegal as the Act of 13 of the 1972 is not applicable in respect to shop in question. He further submitted that perverse finding was recorded by the trial Court and the appellate Court has failed to frame the proper point for determination in appeal. He next submitted that appellate Court has not considered the bonafide need of the landlord and dismissed the appeal filed by petitioners. He submitted that provisions has mentioned in Section 21(i) (a) of the Act No. 13 of 1972 to give notice before six months of filing release application has not been followed, as such the entire proceedings initiated by landlord suffers from manifest error of law. He further submitted that Prescribed authority has recorded the finding in arbitrary manner that tenants/petitioners did not produce any evidence in respect to the business going on in the shop in dispute. He further submitted that petitioners/tenants have paid Rs, 35,400/- to landlord as arrears of rent, as such it cannot be said that tenants/petitioners are not doing any business in the shop in dispute. He submitted that Prescribed authority has also not considered the bonafide need of landlord in proper manner, as such both the judgments are liable to be set aside and release application filed by the landlord should be rejected.

4. On the other hand, Sri Jitendra Kumar, learned counsel for respondent submitted that concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by the Prescribed authority and the appellate Court, as such no interference is required in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He further placed the issues framed before the Prescribed authority and the findings recorded by the Prescribed authority in order to demonstrates that Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable in this matter and there are bonafide need of landlord for the release the shop in question. He next submitted that appeal was decided in proper manner by the appellate Court affirming the finding of trial Court, as such no further interference is required in the matter.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. There is no dispute about the fact that proceeding under Section 21(1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was initiated by the landlord/respondents, which was decided in favour of landlord and order has been maintained in appeal.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of the issues framed before the Prescribed authority will be relevant which are as under:- कयय पशगत समपतत कक बयवत पयरर एवव ववपकक कक मधय मकयनदयर "(1) ददकयन मयतलक) ( एवव वकरययकदयर कय सवबवध हह? कयय पशगत समपतत कक बयवत पयरर कक आवशयकतय सदयवक, ममतलक (2) एवव वयसतववक हह? (3) कयय पशगत समपतत कक पयरर कक पक मम अवमदक वकयक जयनक सक ववपकक कक तदलनयतमक कवठनयई अतधक हकगक अरवय पशगत समपतत कक पयरर कक पक मम अवमदक न वकयक जयनक सक तदलनयतमक कवठनयई पयरर कक अतधक हकगक?"

8. The Prescribed authority has decided three issues framed in P.A. Case No. 270 of 2021 recording findings of fact to the effect that Act No. 13 of 1972 is applicable and there was bonafide need of the landlord for the release of shop in question. The appellate Court has also framed the point of determination in rent control appeal and decided the appeal in proper manner under the impugned judgment/order dated 02.05.2025.

9. The appellate court has rightly exercised the appellate jurisdiction considering the evidence of both the parties.

10. This Court in the case reported in 2001(1) RCR (Rent) 687, Ashok Kersarwani vs. Lalta Prasad has held that need of landlord shall not be refused on the ground that tenant has no alternative accommodation. Paragraph No.12 of the judgment rendered in Ashok Kesarwanti (supra) will be relevant for perusal which is as under:- "12.The appellate authority had also considered the comparative hardships of the parties. The contention of the tenant was that he has no alternative accommodation to shift his business, but on this ground, the hardships of tenant cannot be said greater than that of landlord, as It was held by the Apex Court in the case of Gega Begum v. Abdul Ahad 1986 SCFBRC 346, that if requirement for the house was found to be bona fide and genuine, then the landlord cannot be denied the eviction simply because the tenant had no alternative accommodation available. The tenant always suffers some sort of hardship on eviction, but that does not mean that he cannot be evicted even ff the landlord genuinely and bona fide required the premises. In this way, there is no ground to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the appellate authority on bona fide need of the landlord and comparative hardship."

11. Considering the findings of fact recorded by this Prescribed authority and appellate Court, there is no scope for interference by this Court to disturb the findings of fact recorded by Prescribed authority and appellate Court.

12. The writ petition is dismissed. However, petitioners/tenants are granted six months to vacate the shop in question provided that petitioners/tenants shall file undertaking before Prescribed authority that he will handover peaceful possession of shop in question to the landlord within a period of six months from today. Petitioners/tenants shall pay the monthly rent of the shop in question to the landlord for the period, they will be in possession of the shop in question as directed above. Order Date :- 6.8.2025 Neetu NEETU SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad