# Diptee Singh v. IInd A.D.J., Mainpuri and others

- **Citation:** (2005) 4 ILRA 1144
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-11-29
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25034 of 1988
- **Bench:** S.U. Khan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/diptee-singh-v-iind-a-d-j-mainpuri-and-others-40566
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Sri Ravi Kant
Sri R.P. Dubey
Sri S.R. Pandey
S.C.

U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Rent
and Eviction) Act 1972-S-21(I) bonafied
need-Release
application-residential
accommodation
on
the
ground
of
personal need-during pendency of the
proceeding-Land lord got constructed
another house in the same city and
shifted
there-held-subsequent
event
have to be taken into consideration.

Held: Para 10 and 11

However there does not appear to be any
divergence of opinion on the question of
consideration of subsequent event of
acquisition of property by the landlord.
In the following authorities of the
Supreme Court, it has been held that if
after passing of the release order by the
courts below and during pendency of the
appeal/ revision or writ petition landlord
acquires another accommodation which
completely satisfies his need then this
fact / subsequent event will have to be
taken into consideration and release
order will have to be set-aside on this
ground

Accordingly I hold that acquisition of the
house by the landlord during pendency
of the writ petition and shifting of his
residence
to
the
acquired
house
completely eclipsed his need. This fact is
so important that it can not be ignored
and it will have to be taken into
consideration. Amendment application is
therefore allowed. Due to acquisition of
another house need of the landlord
stands completely satisfied and the
need, which he had has vanished.
Case law discussed:
AIR 2003 SC-2713
AIR 2004 SC-3484
2004 (2) ARC 764
AIR 1997 SC-2399
AIR 2001 SC 803
4 All] Diptee Singh V. IInd A.D.J., Mainpuri and others
1145
AIR 1975 SC-1409
AIR 1991 SC-1760
AIR 1981 SC-1711
2004 (2) ARC 64
AIR 1997 SC-2510

## Text

1144 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
nothing incriminating has been found.
From the letter dated 28.7.2004 it is
apparent that the C.B.I. is of the view
that the question of promotion of the
petitioner is an internal matter of the
Department. From the record it is also
evident that the petitioner had been sent
for training and was called back in the
midst of training. It is further evident that
other candidates along with the petitioner
who had passed the examination have
been sent for training. The career of the
petitioner is being jeopardized only
because he is not being sent for training
due to the alleged investigation in which
neither incriminating articles have been
found till date nor any charge sheet has
been issued to the petitioner.

14. For the reasons stated above, the
writ petition is disposed of with the
direction to the respondents to send the
petitioner for training forthwith. However,
the enquiry pending against the petitioner
may go on. The petitioner may be
promoted to the post of Junior Accounts
Officer which shall be subject to the
finalization
of
the
crimination
investigation by the C.B.I.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.11.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.U. KHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25034 of 1988

Diptee Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
IInd Additional District Judge, Mainpuri
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Swaraj Prakash

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ravi Kant
Sri R.P. Dubey
Sri S.R. Pandey
S.C.

U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Rent
and Eviction) Act 1972-S-21(I) bonafied
need-Release
application-residential
accommodation
on
the
ground
of
personal need-during pendency of the
proceeding-Land lord got constructed
another house in the same city and
shifted
there-held-subsequent
event
have to be taken into consideration.

Held: Para 10 and 11

However there does not appear to be any
divergence of opinion on the question of
consideration of subsequent event of
acquisition of property by the landlord.
In the following authorities of the
Supreme Court, it has been held that if
after passing of the release order by the
courts below and during pendency of the
appeal/ revision or writ petition landlord
acquires another accommodation which
completely satisfies his need then this
fact / subsequent event will have to be
taken into consideration and release
order will have to be set-aside on this
ground

Accordingly I hold that acquisition of the
house by the landlord during pendency
of the writ petition and shifting of his
residence
to
the
acquired
house
completely eclipsed his need. This fact is
so important that it can not be ignored
and it will have to be taken into
consideration. Amendment application is
therefore allowed. Due to acquisition of
another house need of the landlord
stands completely satisfied and the
need, which he had has vanished.
Case law discussed:
AIR 2003 SC-2713
AIR 2004 SC-3484
2004 (2) ARC 764
AIR 1997 SC-2399
AIR 2001 SC 803
4 All] Diptee Singh V. IInd A.D.J., Mainpuri and others
1145
AIR 1975 SC-1409
AIR 1991 SC-1760
AIR 1981 SC-1711
2004 (2) ARC 64
AIR 1997 SC-2510

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.)

1. This is tenant's writ petition
arising
out
of
eviction/
release
proceedings
initiated
by
landlord
respondent No. 2 and 3 Sri Dhruv Kumar
and Smt. Satyawati against him on the
ground of bonafide need under section 21
of U.P Act No. 13 of 1972. Release
application was registered as Misc. Case
No. 50 of 1986. Prescribed authority,
Shikohabad through judgment and order
dated 16.2.1987 rejected the release
application. Against the said judgment
and order, landlord respondent No. 2 and
3 filed Misc. Appeal No. 69 of 1987. II
Additional
District
Judge,
Mainpuri
through
judgment
and
order
dated
26.11.1988 allowed the appeal, set-aside
the judgment and order of the prescribed
authority
and
allowed
the
release
application of the landlord hence this writ
petition by the tenant.

2. Property in dispute is a house rent
of which is only Rs.30/- per month.
Prescribed authority found the need of the
landlord not to be bonafide on the ground
that in Village Asvai landlord had
available with him a residential house.
Landlord had offered that he was ready to
let out a part of the said house to the
tenant in case he vacated the house in
dispute which was situate in the town of
Sirsaganj, Tehsil Shikohabad, district
Mainpuri. Prescribed authority held that
as the need of the landlord was not
bonafide hence there was no occasion for
the landlord to offer the alternative
accommodation to the tenant.
3. The appellate court found that
landlord Dhruv Kumar was employed in
Allahabad Bank and was posted at
Shikohabad which was at a short distance
from Sirsaganj where the house in dispute
is situate and that he was handicapped in
the sense that there was a shortening in
one of his legs and that it was quite
difficult for him to go from village Asvai
to Sirsaganj either on cycle or on scooter
and then go to Shikohabad. Appellate
court also found that mother of Dhruv
Kumar i.e respondent No. 3 was an old
lady suffering from several ailments and
in connection with her treatment she had
to visit regularly town Sirsaganj. In view
of
these
findings
appellate
court
concluded that the need of the landlord
was
quite
bonafide.
In respect
of
comparative hardship appellate court
found that tenant also had his own house
in the village Gurau, which was at a short
distance from Sirsaganj hence he would
not suffer much hardship in case of
eviction. Appellate court also held that the
village of the tenant where his house was
situated was on the Sirsaganj, Etawah
road. In any case tenant did not show that
what efforts he made to search alternative
accommodation after filing of the release
application. This by itself was sufficient
to tilt the balance of comparative hardship
against the tenant as held by the Supreme
Court in B.C.Bhutada Vs. G.R.Mundada
AIR 2003 SC 2713.

4. The prescribed authority had
adopted double standard for judging the
case of both the parties. House of landlord
situate in adjoining village was found
suitable for him while house of tenant
also situate in another adjoining village
was found in sufficient and improper for
him. The prescribed authority even
suggested
the
alternative
means
of
1146 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
transport to the landlord in order to reach
his place of work from his village and go
back. If a landlord residing in a village
wants to shift to town then his need can
not be said to be not bonafide. A town or
city contains much more facilities than a
village.

5. Accordingly I do not find least
error in the judgment and order passed by
the appellate court holding the need of the
landlord to be bonafide and also deciding
the question of comparative hardship in
his favour.

6. However the matter does not end
here. An amendment application dated
9.7.2004 was filed by the tenant petitioner
seeking amendment in the writ petition.
Through the amendment application, it
has been sought to be brought on record
that about three years before the filing of
the amendment application i.e. around
2001 landlord has built his own house in
Nagar Palika Shikohabad and his entire
family has shifted in the said house. In the
counter
affidavit
filed
to
the said
amendment application, the said fact has
been admitted. In Para 9 of the counter
affidavit, it has been stated that landlords
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are ready to give
compensation of Rs. 50000/- to the tenant
petitioner in case he vacates the house in
dispute. In Para 10 of the counter
affidavit, it has been stated that the house
in dispute can now be let out for Rs.
1500/-
to
2000/-
per
month
rent.
Rejoinder affidavit was also filed by the
tenant petitioner and contents of Para 9
and 10 of the counter affidavit were
replied in Para 10 of the rejoinder
affidavit. In the said Para it has been
stated that landlord was pressurizing
tenant petitioner to accept Rs. 4 lakhs for
vacating the house in dispute. It was also
stated in the said paragraph that house in
dispute could fetch only Rs. 500/- per
month rent. During arguments the court
enquired from the learned counsel for the
landlord as to whether landlord was ready
to pay more compensation to the tenant
for mitigating the hardship, which the
tenant would face in case of eviction.
Learned counsel for the landlord stated
that landlord was ready to offer even Rs.
1 lakh for the said purpose. Learned
counsel for the tenant after consulting his
client sated that the tenant was ready to
vacate
the
house
on
payment
of
Rs.180000/- which amount would include
Rs. 1 lakh as compensation and Rs.
80000/-, which the tenant has spent in
litigation.
To
this counter
proposal
learned counsel for landlord did not agree.

7. The question is as to whether the
subsequent event of acquisition of a house
by the landlord can be taken into
consideration or not. On the question of
taking into consideration the subsequent
events in release matters on the ground of
bonafide need there appears to be some
divergence of opinion among different
authorities of the Supreme Court.

8. In Shakuntala Bai Vs. Narain
Das, AIR 2004 SC 3484 decided on
5.5.2004, it was held that subsequent
event of death of landlord is not to be
taken into consideration. However in
another authority decided on 13.10.2004
reported in K.N.Agarwal Vs. Dhanraji
Devi, 2004 (2) ARC 764 a contrary view
was taken and it was held by the Supreme
Court that death of the landlord during
pendency of the writ petition for whose
need the shop in dispute was released by
the courts below made the release order
passed by the courts below ineffective and
inexecutable as due to the death of the
4 All] Diptee Singh V. IInd A.D.J., Mainpuri and others
1147
landlord the need vanished and in case his
heirs were interested in doing business
they could file a fresh release application.
Unfortunately in the later authority of
K.N. Agarwal the earlier authority of
Shakuntala Bai was not considered. In
Kamleshwar Prasad Vs. B.Agarwal AIR
1997 SC 2399 also it was held that death
of the landlord does not make any
difference. The said case arose out of U.P
Rent Control Act and was considered in
Shakuntala Bai's case.

9. It has also been held by the
Supreme Court that if release is sought for
business purposes then some job during
the period when matter remains pending
in the court does not disentitle the
landlord from getting the benefit of the
release order. In this regard reference may
be made to Gaya Prasad Vs. Pradeep
Srivastava, AIR 2001 SC 803.

10. However there does not appear
to be any divergence of opinion on the
question of consideration of subsequent
event of acquisition of property by the
landlord. In the following authorities of
the Supreme Court, it has been held that if
after passing of the release order by the
courts below and during pendency of the
appeal/ revision or writ petition landlord
acquires another accommodation which
completely satisfies his need then this fact
/ subsequent event will have to be taken
into consideration and release order will
have to be set-aside on this ground:-

1. P. Venkateswarlu Vs. Motor and
General Traders, AIR 1975 SC 1409
2. Gulab Bai Vs. N.N.Vohra, AIR 1991 SC
1760
3. Hasmat Rai Vs. Raghunath Prasad AIR
1981 SC 1711

11. Accordingly I hold that
acquisition of the house by the landlord
during pendency of the writ petition and
shifting of his residence to the acquired
house completely eclipsed his need. This
fact is so important that it can not be
ignored and it will have to be taken into
consideration. Amendment application is
therefore allowed. Due to acquisition of
another house need of the landlord stands
completely satisfied and the need, which
he had has vanished.

12. Accordingly due to acquisition
of a house during pendency of the writ
petition, this writ petition is allowed.
Judgment and order passed by the
appellate court is set-aside. Judgment and
order passed by the prescribed authority is
restored
(even
though
on
different
grounds).

13. I have held in Khursheeda
Versus A.D.J, 2004 (2) ARC 64 that
while granting relief to the tenant against
eviction in respect of building covered by
Rent
Control
Act,
writ
court
is
empowered to enhance the rent to a
reasonable
extent.
Under
somewhat
similar circumstances the Supreme Court
in the authority reported in A.K Bhatt Vs.
R.M Shah AIR 1997 SC 2510 enhanced
the rent from Rs. 101/- per month to Rs.
3500/- per month with effect from the
date of the judgment of the Supreme
Court. For the period during which appeal
remained pending before the Supreme
Court rent was enhanced to Rs. 2000/- per
month for some of the period and Rs.
2500/- per month for rest of the period. In
the said authority release application of
the landlord had been allowed by the
courts below. The Supreme Court held
that the landlord who had sought release
of the building when he was about 54
1148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
years of age had become 87 years of age
when the matter was decided by the
Supreme Court hence he was not in a
position to do any business. This fact of
old age of the landlord was taken into
consideration
as
relevant
subsequent
event by the Supreme Court.

14. In the instant case landlord has
asserted that house in dispute which
contains two rooms, varandah and other
amenities can be let out for Rs. 1500/- to
Rs.2000/- per month. Tenant has asserted
that it can not be let out for more than
Rs.500/- per month. Taking an average of
these two figures, reasonable rent appears
to be Rs.800/- per month.

15. Accordingly, it is directed that
with effect from 1.1.1989 till 31.12.1995,
tenant petitioner shall pay the rent at the
rate of Rs.400/- per month. With effect
from 1.1.1996 till 31.12.2005, he shall
pay rent at the rate of Rs.600/- per month.
With effect from 1.1.2006 onward, rent
shall be paid at the rate of Rs.800/- per
month. Entire arrears of rent at the above
rates due till 31.12.2005 after adjusting
the rent already paid on the old rate shall
be cleared in 18 (eighteen) equal monthly
installments starting from 1.1.2006. If by
June 2007, entire arrears of rent as
aforesaid are not cleared then this writ
petition shall be treated to have been
dismissed and tenant petitioner shall be
evicted in proceedings under section 23 of
the Act after June 2007. This order is
being passed in the light of the judgment
of the aforesaid authority of Supreme
Court of A.K. Bhatt. In the said authority
also, it was directed in the last but one
sentence that if tenant committed default
he should be liable to ejectment.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.09.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1107 of 2002

Ex. Constable 539 CP Kanhaiya Lal.

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sarvajeet Singh
Sri S.N. Pandey
Sri S.B. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

U.P.Police Officers of the Subordinate
Rank (Punishment & Appeal) Rules
1991-Rule
8
(26)-
Punishment
by
dispensing with disciplinary-enquiry-on
the ground enquiry, impossibility-No
reason recorded why enquiring not
possible-repeated
punishment
for
unauthorised absence from duty-in 20
years of service life-absent for 576 daysenquiring can be easily made-so the
decision of dispersing with enquiry-heldarbitrary.
Held: Para 9

In the present case, I find that the
petitioner absented himself on several
occasions for which he was penalised.
The disciplinary authority found that in
20 years he was absent for 576 days and
that he was also involved in a criminal
case, and on this basis, the disciplinary
authority had passed the order removing
the petitioner from the service. The
impugned
order
indicates
that
the
authority had not given any reason for
dispensing
with
the
inquiry.
Consequently, the impugned order is the
violation of the provisions of Rule
8(2)(b) of the Rules of 1991. Further, the