Md. Ishtiyaq vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)

Srivastava, Sudeep Kumar Court No. - 6 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

1. Heard Shri Himanshu Kumar Bachhil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shreshth Srivastava, learned counsel for respondents.

2. The instant petition has been filed by the tenant-petitioner assailing the judgment and order dated 11.08.2025, passed by the District Judge, Sultanpur in Rent Appeal No.43/2024, whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and the release order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the Prescribed Authority in Misc. Case No.218/2018, under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 has been affirmed.

3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite the respondents having ample accommodations, yet ignoring the same, the Prescribed Authority has allowed the release application and even otherwise the issue of comparative hardship has not been appropriately considered especially when the said shop in question has been in the possessions of the petitioner since long.

4. It is further urged that the evidence was led by the applicants to indicate that the applicants/landlords had 14 shops with them and if the need was genuine, they could get the shops vacated, however, in order to target and evict the petitioner, the release application was moved against the petitioner which does not indicate the bonafide need. 2 WRIA No. 12261 of 2025

5. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is urged that the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Court are against the material on record and deserves to be set aside.

6. Shri Shreshth Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the private- respondents has urged that insofar as the issue of bonafide need is concerned, the same is between the landlord and the Court. The tenant is not entitled to dispute a question of bonafide need and neither the tenant can dictate the term to the landlord as to which shop would be suitable.

7. Shri Srivastava, learned counsel for the private-respondents has vehemently pointed out that the endeavour of the petitioner is to retain the shop in question despite the fact that he already has his own shop which is let out and there is nothing on record to indicate that what measures have been taken by the petitioner to seek the eviction of his tenant from the shop owned by the petitioner.

8. It is also urged that there is nothing on record to indicate that since filing of the release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 what efforts were made by the tenant to vacate the shop in question or to seek alternate premises and this fact in itself disentitles the petitioner to seek the discretionary relief or remedy before this Court.

9. It is lastly urged that the issue regarding bonafide need and comparative hardship is both an issue of fact concurrently held by the two Courts, which is not amenable for the scrutiny under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India unless any perversity is pointed out, which needless to say has not been demonstrated by the petitioner. Hence, the petition must fail.

10. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

11. The private-respondents are the descendants of Shri Gurbachan Singh. It is not disputed by the parties that after the death of Shri Gurbachan Singh his legal heirs i.e. the private-respondents had filed a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, wherein it was clearly pleaded that the disputed shop in question which is 3 WRIA No. 12261 of 2025 under the tenancy of the petitioner was required to set up the business need of the respondent No.1, namely, Kamaljeeet Kaur.

12. The record further indicates that it was also pleaded that as far as the other accommodation available with the landlord is concerned, some of them have been sold out and insofar as the business need set up for the respondent No.1 is concerned, the shop under the tenancy of the petitioner was most suitable.

13. It was also urged that the petitioner has also not paid the rent, but the fact remains that was the issue before the Prescribed Authority is confined only to assess the bonafide need of the landlord and then take a look at the comparative hardship.

14. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that after the parties had led their evidence, the Prescribed Authority, by means of its judgment and order dated 14.08.2024, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure No.2, considered the evidence and the Prescribed Authority has clearly recorded that the business need for the respondent No.1 is genuine and bonafide.

15. There is nothing on record to establish the fact that as to how the said need, as set up by the respondent No.1, could be treated to be not bonafide. Merely to state that the landlord had adequate accommodation cannot be a ground for a tenant to assail the bonafide need of a lordlord. In absence of any material to contrary, the need set up by the landlord cannot be said to be bad and this is what has been held by the Prescribed Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Court.

16. In this view of the matter, this Court does not find that the findings returned by the two Courts required any interference insofar as the issue of bonafide need is concerned.

17. Having examined the plea of comparative hardship, again this Court finds that neither the petitioner has indicated that what efforts were made by him to seek alternate accommodation and in absence of the same, it cannot be said that the Court has not noticed the comparative hardship and ruled it in favour of the landlord. 4 WRIA No. 12261 of 2025

18. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the fact that he too owns a shop and instead of shifting to his own premises, he is contesting this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not indicate what measures were taken by the petitioner to get his shop vacated. In absence of any contrary evidence, the finding on comparative hardship cannot be said to be bad in law.

19. Moreover, this too being a question of fact, which could be demonstrated to be perverse or illegal and thus the said findings being essentially findings of fact and this Court would loath to interfere with the same.

20. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances, this Court does not find that there is palpable error in the order passed by the Prescribed Authority or the Appellate Court for this Court to intervene. The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed with a cost of Rs.20,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents within a period of two months from today. November 3, 2025 Rakesh/- (Jaspreet Singh,J.) RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Srivastava, Sudeep Kumar Court No. - 6 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

1. Heard Shri Himanshu Kumar Bachhil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shreshth Srivastava, learned counsel for respondents.

2. The instant petition has been filed by the tenant-petitioner assailing the judgment and order dated 11.08.2025, passed by the District Judge, Sultanpur in Rent Appeal No.43/2024, whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and the release order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the Prescribed Authority in Misc. Case No.218/2018, under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 has been affirmed.

3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite the respondents having ample accommodations, yet ignoring the same, the Prescribed Authority has allowed the release application and even otherwise the issue of comparative hardship has not been appropriately considered especially when the said shop in question has been in the possessions of the petitioner since long.

4. It is further urged that the evidence was led by the applicants to indicate that the applicants/landlords had 14 shops with them and if the need was genuine, they could get the shops vacated, however, in order to target and evict the petitioner, the release application was moved against the petitioner which does not indicate the bonafide need. 2 WRIA No. 12261 of 2025

5. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is urged that the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Court are against the material on record and deserves to be set aside.

6. Shri Shreshth Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the private- respondents has urged that insofar as the issue of bonafide need is concerned, the same is between the landlord and the Court. The tenant is not entitled to dispute a question of bonafide need and neither the tenant can dictate the term to the landlord as to which shop would be suitable.

7. Shri Srivastava, learned counsel for the private-respondents has vehemently pointed out that the endeavour of the petitioner is to retain the shop in question despite the fact that he already has his own shop which is let out and there is nothing on record to indicate that what measures have been taken by the petitioner to seek the eviction of his tenant from the shop owned by the petitioner.

8. It is also urged that there is nothing on record to indicate that since filing of the release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 what efforts were made by the tenant to vacate the shop in question or to seek alternate premises and this fact in itself disentitles the petitioner to seek the discretionary relief or remedy before this Court.

9. It is lastly urged that the issue regarding bonafide need and comparative hardship is both an issue of fact concurrently held by the two Courts, which is not amenable for the scrutiny under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India unless any perversity is pointed out, which needless to say has not been demonstrated by the petitioner. Hence, the petition must fail.

10. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

11. The private-respondents are the descendants of Shri Gurbachan Singh. It is not disputed by the parties that after the death of Shri Gurbachan Singh his legal heirs i.e. the private-respondents had filed a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, wherein it was clearly pleaded that the disputed shop in question which is 3 WRIA No. 12261 of 2025 under the tenancy of the petitioner was required to set up the business need of the respondent No.1, namely, Kamaljeeet Kaur.

12. The record further indicates that it was also pleaded that as far as the other accommodation available with the landlord is concerned, some of them have been sold out and insofar as the business need set up for the respondent No.1 is concerned, the shop under the tenancy of the petitioner was most suitable.

13. It was also urged that the petitioner has also not paid the rent, but the fact remains that was the issue before the Prescribed Authority is confined only to assess the bonafide need of the landlord and then take a look at the comparative hardship.

14. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that after the parties had led their evidence, the Prescribed Authority, by means of its judgment and order dated 14.08.2024, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure No.2, considered the evidence and the Prescribed Authority has clearly recorded that the business need for the respondent No.1 is genuine and bonafide.

15. There is nothing on record to establish the fact that as to how the said need, as set up by the respondent No.1, could be treated to be not bonafide. Merely to state that the landlord had adequate accommodation cannot be a ground for a tenant to assail the bonafide need of a lordlord. In absence of any material to contrary, the need set up by the landlord cannot be said to be bad and this is what has been held by the Prescribed Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Court.

16. In this view of the matter, this Court does not find that the findings returned by the two Courts required any interference insofar as the issue of bonafide need is concerned.

17. Having examined the plea of comparative hardship, again this Court finds that neither the petitioner has indicated that what efforts were made by him to seek alternate accommodation and in absence of the same, it cannot be said that the Court has not noticed the comparative hardship and ruled it in favour of the landlord. 4 WRIA No. 12261 of 2025

18. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the fact that he too owns a shop and instead of shifting to his own premises, he is contesting this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not indicate what measures were taken by the petitioner to get his shop vacated. In absence of any contrary evidence, the finding on comparative hardship cannot be said to be bad in law.

19. Moreover, this too being a question of fact, which could be demonstrated to be perverse or illegal and thus the said findings being essentially findings of fact and this Court would loath to interfere with the same.

20. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances, this Court does not find that there is palpable error in the order passed by the Prescribed Authority or the Appellate Court for this Court to intervene. The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed with a cost of Rs.20,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents within a period of two months from today. November 3, 2025 Rakesh/- (Jaspreet Singh,J.) RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench