# Farukh @ Faruk v. Appellate Authority/A.D.J. Khurja & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 3 ILRA 579
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-03-03
- **Case number:** Writ -A ( Rent Control ) No. 15008 of 2020
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/farukh-faruk-v-appellate-authority-a-d-j-khurja-ors-46922
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - UP Urban Building (Regulation
of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - S.
21 (1) (a) - Eviction suit - Bona fide need -
Landlord's need to expand his business -
Held, landlord has got every right to expand
his business and in case he requires
additional space for it, the need cannot be
said to be mala fide. (Para 14)

C. Civil Law - UP Urban Building (Regulation
of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - S.
21 (1) (a) - Eviction suit - Comparative
hardship - Concurrent finding - Based on
cogent
evidence
-
No
perversity
-
Interference - Tenant-petitioner has never
made any effort to search out any shop
during the pendency of litigation and that
the landlord offered him a shop which he
denied to accept - Held, concurrent findings
of fact have been recorded by the courts
below, which are based on cogent evidence
available before the courts below and such
findings are not perverse in nature, even if it
is accepted that two views are possible -
High Court did not incline to interfere in the
impugned orders. (Para 11 and 15)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-1)

Cases relied on :-

## Text

3 All. Farukh @ Faruk Vs. Appellate Authority/A.D.J. Khurja & Ors.
579

13. Further ground on which transfer of
case was sought was that the opposite party is
propagating in the court campus that he will
get injunction from the court in respect of
whole property, this ground also cannot be
said to form bonafide and reasonable
apprehension in the mind of the applicant that
he would not get justice from the court
inasmuch as the said propoganda is also
hearsay and there is no material on record to
corroborate the said apprehension.

14. In view of the aforesaid fact, this
Court finds that the judgement of the Apex
Court relied upon by counsel for the
applicant is not applicable in the facts of the
present case inasmuch as the pleadings in the
transfer application does not make out ground
which can be said to be sufficient for forming
reasonable apprehension in the mind of the
applicant that he will not get justice from the
court.

15. In view of the aforesaid discussion,
this Court does not find any error in the order
of the District Judge rejecting the transfer
application.

16.

Accordingly,
the
transfer
application is dismissed without any order as
to costs.
----------
(2021)03ILR A579
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.03.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.

Writ -A ( Rent Control ) No. 15008 of 2020

Farukh @ Faruk ...Petitioner
Versus
Appellate Authority/A.D.J. Khurja & Ors.
 ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Dushyant Singh, Sri M.C. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Mohd. Saleem Khan, Sri Swetashwa
Agarwal, Sri P.K. Jain

A. Civil Law - UP Urban Building (Regulation
of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - S.
21 (1) (a) - Eviction suit - Bona fide need -
Landlord's need to expand his business -
Held, landlord has got every right to expand
his business and in case he requires
additional space for it, the need cannot be
said to be mala fide. (Para 14)

C. Civil Law - UP Urban Building (Regulation
of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - S.
21 (1) (a) - Eviction suit - Comparative
hardship - Concurrent finding - Based on
cogent
evidence
-
No
perversity
-
Interference - Tenant-petitioner has never
made any effort to search out any shop
during the pendency of litigation and that
the landlord offered him a shop which he
denied to accept - Held, concurrent findings
of fact have been recorded by the courts
below, which are based on cogent evidence
available before the courts below and such
findings are not perverse in nature, even if it
is accepted that two views are possible -
High Court did not incline to interfere in the
impugned orders. (Para 11 and 15)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-1)

Cases relied on :-

1. Surendra Singh Vs A.D.J.,Court No. 11,
Muzaffarnagar & 4 ors., 2019 (3) ARC 112

2. Smt. Shamim Begum & 5 ors. Vs Dinesh
Kumar & 7 ors., 2019 (1) ARC 319

3. Kailash Nath Gupta Vs Smt. Asha Gupta & 3
ors., 2018 (3) ARC 451

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.)

1. Heard Sri M.C. Singh, learned
counsel along with Sri Dushyant Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant
580 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and Sri P. K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Mohd. Saleem Khan, learned
counsel for the respondents-landlord.

2.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents-landlord submits that he does
not want to file any counter affidavit,
therefore, with the consent of parties the
matter was finally heard and the judgement
was reserved.

3. The Present petition has been filed
challenging the impugned order dated
9.11.2020 passed by the respondent no. 1
and the impugned order dated 1.4.2019
passed by the respondent no. 2.

4. The landlord filed a release
application for releasing the shop in
question on the ground that the shop is
needed for his doctor sons for clinic and for
using the same as passage, which is
required for connecting the landed property
behind the shop on which the landlord
wants to construct the hospital. It was
asserted that no passage is available for
connecting the vacant plot to the main road
and therefore, present shop, being the
longest one, is required for personal need.
The same was contested by the petitionertenant herein on the ground that names of
the doctor sons have not been disclosed in
the plaint and in fact, the landlord is
already having nursing home/hospital and
therefore, the shop in question is not
required. It was further asserted that the
present shop whereon the tenant is carrying
on barber shop, is the only source of his
income.

5. After considering the issue of bona
fide need, it was found by the trial Court
that the shop is required as a passage for
opening of the proposed hospital/nursing
home to be constructed by the landlord on
the main road and therefore, the need is
bona fide. As per the map filed before the
Court below, the approach road to the
proposed hospital is on the side and is
narrow and is not suitable and does not
fulfil the requirement of law for sanction of
the map and that the plaintiff has sufficient
means to construct the hospital. It was
further found that during the pendency of
release application since 2017, no attempt
was made by the tenant to search out any
alternative accommodation. Accordingly,
the release application was allowed in
favour of the landlord and the release of the
shop in question was ordered.

6. Appeal was filed by the petitionertenant. On the basis of argument and the
grounds taken in appeal, 17 points of
determination were framed by the lower
appellate court and after considering the
evidence on record and dealing with the
arguments made by the tenant, lower
appellate court found that the need of the
landlord of the shop in question for having
passage from the plot on which hospital is
to be constructed connecting it to the main
road, for which map has already been
submitted
before
the
development
authority, was genuine and bona fide. The
issues raised by the tenant were specifically
dealt with and rejected. Various documents
including
map
submitted
before
the
development authority were considered and
it was found that no evidence in rebuttal
was given by the tenant. It was found that
the passage which was claimed to be
available to the landlord to the vacant land
was in fact not the passage connecting the
plot directly to the main road. It was also
found that the landlord has filed an
affidavit of one Irshad Mohd Khan who
offered his shop to the tenant, to which no
rebuttal was filed by the tenant, however,
this offer was not accepted by the
3 All. Farukh @ Faruk Vs. Appellate Authority/A.D.J. Khurja & Ors.
581
petitioner-tenant herein. Therefore, the
comparative hardship was found in favour
of the landlord as the tenant has not made
any effort to search out any alternative
accommodation and on the contrary he
refused to accept the shop, which was
offered to him in alternative. The appeal
was also dismissed by the lower appellate
court.

7. Challenging the impugned orders,
submission of learned counsel for the
tenant-petitioner is that the landlord already
has 2-3 hospitals and clinics and therefore,
the need of his doctor sons without even
disclosing their names, was not bona fide.
It is submitted that the comparative
hardship of the tenant has been brushed
aside without any cogent reasons. It is
submitted that the findings recorded by the
courts below on the issue of bona fide and
comparative
hardship
are
absolutely
perverse in nature. By drawing attention to
paragraph 5 of the release application, it is
submitted that the son wants to run a clinic
on the shop in question and on the
adjoining vacant plot proposed hospital is
to be constructed for which no passage is
available from the main road, therefore,
simultaneous need, for establishing the
clinic and passage required for the
proposed hospital, is not bona fide and
genuine. Drawing attention to the map,
which was submitted by the landlord
showing that on the one side of the
property owned by the landlord a passage
having width of 91⁄2 feet is available to the
landlord, which connects the open piece of
land on which hospital/nursing home is
proposed to be constructed, therefore, need
for connecting the proposed hospital to the
main road is not at all genuine and bona
fide. He submits that the width of shop is,
in fact, 81⁄2 feet which is even less than to
the passage available to the landlord and
thus, if the width of the shop in question
cannot be increased, which is even lesser
than the passage available to the landlord,
clearly the findings recorded by the courts
below are perverse in nature. It was further
submitted that enough establishment in
occupation is already available with the
landlord and his sons are sitting in a
different clinic and that the landlord is
having one ayurvedic hospital where the
his sons are doing their practice and
therefore, the need as shown clinic either is
not bona fide. During course of argument,
attention was drawn to paragraph 5 of the
release application, paragraph 32 of the
written statement filed by the tenant,
various documents placed on record before
this Court by means of supplementary
affidavit filed today in Court. He further
pointed out that the trial court has decided
the case in a cursory manner and the lower
appellate court has also decided the case in
a
predetermined
mind.
By
drawing
attention to paragraph 33 of the judgement
of lower appellate court, it was submitted
that the observations of the lower appellate
court that no evidence was submitted by the
tenant to contradict the documents annexed
as 27A/2 and 27A/3 is incorrect. Attention
was also drawn to the reply submitted by
the tenant to the affidavit submitted by the
landlord annexed with the supplementary
affidavit filed today, to submit that the
reply was submitted by the tenant. It was
also submitted that the vacant plot was not
a freehold plot and therefore, the release
application filed on the ground that the
passage is required for the proposed
hospital to be constructed on the aforesaid
vacant
piece
of
land
was
illegally
entertained.

8. Per contra, Sri P. K. Jain, learned
Senior Counsel contends that concurrent
findings have been recorded by the courts
582 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
below after appreciation of evidence on
record. He submits that admittedly, now the
plot is a freehold plot and there is no
impediment in raising the construction. He
pointed out that the tenant-petitioner was
offered another shop whose owner is
willing to let out his shop but that offer was
not accepted by the tenant-petitioner and
therefore, it cannot be said that he had any
comparative hardship. Insofar as bona fide
need is concerned, it is submitted that the
running of the clinic on the said plot by the
doctor
sons
was
only
during
the
construction of the proposed hospital and
thereafter the shop is to be used as a
passage to the hospital. It is submitted that
insofar as the passage, which is being said
to be sufficient to cater the need of the
hospital is concerned, as per the laws of the
development authority, 12 meter wide road
is required for opening of any such
hospital, otherwise the map cannot be
sanctioned by the development authority. It
is submitted that this is the requirement of
law, therefore, direct approach to the main
road is necessary before the map could be
sanctioned by the development authority.
He further submits that admittedly, the map
of the proposed hospital is pending
consideration
before
the
development
authority and nothing could be indicated by
the tenant that direct approach to at least 12
meter wide road is not required for the
construction of proposed hospital/nursing
home. He, therefore, submits that it is very
much clear that need of the landlord is bona
fide in nature. He pointed out that the
landlord himself is ayurvedic doctor and
his sons and one daughter-in-law are
allopathic/surgeon MBBS doctors and they
cannot be made to sit at ayurvedic hospital
of the landlord. He, therefore, submits that
the side passage, which may be 91⁄2 feet
wide, is not sufficient to meet out the
statutory requirement of the development
authority and direct passage is required for
the
proposed hospital.
He, however,
submits that the tenant cannot dictate the
terms in what manner the landlord has to
run his business. In support of his
arguments, he has placed reliance on a
judgement of this Court in Surendra Singh
vs. Additional District Judge Court No. 11,
Muzaffarnagar and 4 others, 2019 (3) ARC
112 (Para 21). Attention was also drawn to
the various documents annexed with the
supplementary affidavit filed today by the
tenant. He, thus, submits that the judgement
and orders impugned herein do not require
any interference by this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.

9. I have considered the rival
submissions and perused the record.

10. On perusal of the record, I find
that in paragraph 6 of the plaint it has been
mentioned that the shop, which is in the
tenancy of the present tenant-petitioner is
the deepest one and this shop is required
for clinic and subsequently for passage to
the proposed hospital. It was the specific
case of the landlord that direct passage is
required for the hospital from the main road
as per the law. The specific case of the
tenant was that the passage of 91⁄2 feet wide
is available to the landlord was explained in
paragraph 45 of the written statement
wherein it was submitted that the said
passage goes to the vacant plot of the
landlord and to tyre factory of one Tirth
Singh Mahtab Singh. This ground was
specifically taken in appeal also. The
concurrent findings have been recorded by
the trial court on the basis of the evidence
available on record. However, I find that
lower appellate court had considered
everything in great detail by making
reference to the documentary evidence on
record as and when required. The lower
3 All. Farukh @ Faruk Vs. Appellate Authority/A.D.J. Khurja & Ors.
583
appellate court had also framed as many as
17 points of determination, which were
discussed in detail.Dealing with issue no.2
apart from other issues, the issue of bona
fide need was also considered. The issue of
relevance of depth and width of the shop in
question was also considered. The trial
Court after discussing the evidence on
record in detail found that the need of the
landlord for release of the shop for making
the passage to the main road from the
hospital is bona fide and genuine. It was
found that dimensions of the shop are not
relevant for this purpose and the need was
found to be bona fide and genuine. I find
that
while
discussing
the
issue
of
comparative hardship, which was decided
along with few other issues, it was found
that documentary evidence was available
on record in the shape of map filed before
the development authority and that a
passage directly connecting the hospital to
the main road of 12 meter or more is
required and no document to dislodge this
evidence was filed by the tenant. I find that
the
said
requirement
is
a
statutory
requirement as per the building regulations
and cannot be waived and, therefore, prima
facie, need is genuine and bona fide in
nature,
therefore,
simply
because
of
availability of the side passage, such need,
by itself, cannot be said to be mala fide
need of the landlord. Insofar as the
assertion of the learned counsel for the
tenant that in fact, he has denied the
allegations made in the affidavit as
mentioned
in
paragraph
33
of
the
judgement of lower appellate court, suffice
to note that the documents annexed with
the supplementary affidavit indicates that
although the tenant-petitioner has, in fact,
filed reply to the affidavit filed by the
landlord,
however,
in
rebuttal
no
documentary evidence was filed to indicate
that the map has not been filed before the
development authority in the year 2014
itself and the same is pending consideration
or that the requirement of building laws are
not mandatory in nature. During course of
argument, reference was made to the
requirement of Khurja Master Plan that for
passing map for such hospital it should be
directly connected with a 12 meter wide
road. The same could not be denied by the
learned counsel for the tenant-petitioner. It
could also not be denied that the landlord
himself is a ayurvedic doctor and his two
sons are allopathic doctors and his
daughter-in-law is also allopathic doctor
and that they are sitting in ayurvedic clinic
of the landlord, also could not be dislodged
by the tenant. Thus, their bona fide need is
established.

11. In such view of the matter, I find
that concurrent findings of fact have been
recorded by the courts below, which are
based on cogent evidence available before
the courts below and such findings are not
perverse in nature, even if, for the sake of
argument, it is accepted that two views are
possible.

12. A reference may be made to
paragraph 28 of Surendra Singh (supra),
which is quoted as under:

"28-
The
legal
position
and
conclusions as stated above are briefly
summarized as under:

(i) Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act 13 of
1972 is very widely worded. Demolition
and reconstruction for occupation by
landlord himself either for residential
purpose or for purposes of any profession,
trade or calling is permissible. The words
'profession, trade or calling' are very wide
and include all activities wherein a person
may usefully and/ or gainfully engage
himself.
584 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(ii) If the disputed property has
acquired commercial value and, therefore,
the the landlord wished to demolish the old
single storey structure and to construct a
multi-storeyed building which may fetch
him higher rent and has applied to the
competent authorities and got the plans
approved, then the landlord's bonafide
need is true.

(iii) It is well settled the landlord's
requirement need not be a dire necessity.
The Court cannot direct the landlord to do
a particular business or imagine that he
could profitably do a particular business
rather than the business he proposes to
start. It is for the landlord to decide which
business he wants to do. The Court cannot
advise him.

(iv) Landlord is the best judge of his
need and this Court can not interfere in
concurrent findings of fact regarding
bonafide
need
establish
before
the
Prescribed Authority and the appellate
authority. This Court can interfere only
when there is perversity in the findings
recorded or when the courts below have
acted without jurisdiction or far in excess
of jurisdiction. A landlord has got a right to
expand his business and in case, he
requires additional space for it, the need
cannot be said to be malafide. The tenant
cannot dictate terms to the landlord as to
how he should satisfy his need. Landlord is
sole person who can take a decision as to
which shop fulfils his need and the needs of
his family. The tenant or for that matter
even the Court can not guide the landlord
as to which accommodation he should view
to fulfil his need and which accommodation
he shall not use.

(v) To be amenable to correction in
certiorari jurisdiction, the error committed
by the Court or Authority on whose
judgment
this
Court
is
exercising
jurisdiction, should be an error which is
self-evident. An error which needs to be
established by lengthy and complicated
arguments or by indulging into a long-
drawn
process
of
reasoning,
cannot
possibly
be
an
error
available
for
correction by writ of certiorari. If it is
reasonably possible to form two opinions
on the same material, the finding arrived at
one way or the other, cannot be called a
patent error. As to the exercise of
supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution also,
it has been held in Surya Dev Rai (Supra)
that the jurisdiction was not available to be
exercised
for
indulging
into
re-
appreciation or evaluation of evidence or
correcting the errors in drawing inferences
like a court of appeal.

(vi) The tenant-petitioner has not
disputed the fact even before this Court that
the landlord-respondents have offered him
a shop on the ground-floor for vacating the
disputed shop and that the commercial
complex as per sanctioned map has already
been
constructed
by
the
landlordrespondents over the land in question and
the only shop is of the petitioner which
obstructed the front portion of the newly
constructed commercial complex. Under
the circumstances, the bonafide need of the
landlord-respondents stands proved under
Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972.
Under the circumstances, the conduct of
the tenant-petitioner in not vacating the
shop, cannot be appreciated, inasmuch as
he is the only tenant, who is obstructing
better beneficial use of the commercial
complex by the landlord-respondents.

(viii)
Under
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, the findings of
both the courts below with regard to
bonafide
need
of
the
plaintifflandlord/respondents cannot be said to
suffer from any legal infirmity. The findings
recorded by the courts below are findings
3 All. Farukh @ Faruk Vs. Appellate Authority/A.D.J. Khurja & Ors.
585
of fact, which are based on relevant
evidences on record."

13. A reference may also be made to a
judgement of this Curt in Smt. Shamim
Begum and 5 others vs. Dinesh Kumar and
7 others, 2019 (1) ARC 319, paragraphs 11
and 12 whereof are quoted as under:

"11.
There
was
some
dispute
regarding the exact area of the shop in
possession of Hemant Kumar, as according
to the assertions made in the release
application, the area of the said shop was
8' x 30' but the Prescribed Authority has
returned a finding that the area is 9' x 34',
but nothing much turns upon it, keeping in
mind the nature of need. The specific case
of the landlords was that after putting
counter on the front side, a very narrow
passage is left for ingress and egress of the
customers. The business being done by
Hemant Kumar, consists of sale and supply
of fast food, confectionery and bakery items
and it cannot be disputed that for carrying
on such a business, ample space is
required. The specific case of the landlords
was that they were compelled to purchase
the adjoining shop, being most suited to
their need, for a hefty sum. A landlord has
got a right to expand his business and in
case he requires additional space for it, the
need cannot be said to be malafide. The
tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlords
as to how he should satisfy his need. The
court cannot act as a rationing authority
and force the landlord not to expand his
business or carry on in the same shop. In
the above context, it is worthwhile to quote
the following lines from the judgement of
the Supreme Court in Sarla Ahuja Vs.
United India Insurance Company Ltd,
(1998) 8 SCC 119:-

".........When a landlord asserts that he
requires
his
building
for
his
own
occupation, the Rent Controller shall not
proceed on the presumption that the
requirement is not bona fide. When other
conditions of the clause are satisfied and
when the landlord shows a prima facie
case, it is open to the Rent Controller to
draw a presumption that the requirement of
the landlord is bona fide. It is often said by
courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate
terms to the landlords as to how else he can
adjust himself without getting possession of
the tenanted premises. While deciding the
question of bona fides of the requirement of
the landlord, it is quite necessary to make
an endeavour as to how else the landlord
could have adjusted himself."

12. The appellate court was fully
justified in holding that the need of Hemant
Kumar for additional space for expansion
of his existing business is genuine and
bonafide and he cannot be compelled to
effect expansion of his business at some
other place. The view taken by the
Prescribed Authority that Hemant Kumar
had sufficient space available with him in
shop no.14/2, was based on wholly
irrelevant consideration that one of his
uncles is running his business in a much
smaller shop measuring 8' x 16'. It was not
at all germane for evaluating the need of
Hemant Kumar, having regard to the
nature of business being carried on by
him."

14. A reference may also be made to a
judgement of this Court in Kailash Nath
Gupta vs. Smt. Asha Gupta and 3 others,
2018 (3) ARC 451 wherein it has been held
that the need of landlord or his sons for
expansion of the business cannot be said to
be not bona fide.

15. Therefore, it is clear that the
landlord has got every right to expand his
business and in case he requires additional
586 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
space for it, the need cannot be said to be
mala fide. In the present case, there are four
doctors in the family of landlord and if the
need is being shown for establishing the
hospital/nursing home or for expansion of
professions, the same cannot be said to be
mala fide in nature. Insofar as the
comparative hardship is concerned, it is not
in dispute that the tenant-petitioner has
never made any effort to search out any
shop during the pendency of litigation and
that the landlord offered him a shop which
he denied to accept the same, therefore, the
issue of comparative hardship has also been
correctly decided in favour of the landlord.
Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in
the impugned orders.

16. Present petition is devoid of merit
and is accordingly dismissed.

17. However, having considered the
facts and circumstances of the case, subject to
filing of an undertaking by the petitionertenant before the Court below, it is provided
that:

(1) The tenant-petitioner shall
handover the peaceful possession of the
shops in question to the landlord-respondent
on or before 30.6.2021.

(2) The tenant-petitioner shall file
the undertaking before the Court below to the
said effect within four weeks from the date of
receipt of self-verified copy of this order;

(3) In the undertaking the tenantpetitioner shall also state that he will not
create any interest in favour of the third party
in the premises in dispute;

(4) Subject to filing of the said
undertaking, the tenant-petitioner shall not be
evicted from the premises in question till the
aforesaid period;

(5) It is made clear that in case of
default of any of the conditions mentioned
herein-above, the protection granted by this
Court shall stand vacated automatically.

(6) In case the shop is not vacated
as per the undertaking given by the tenant, he
shall also be liable for contempt.

18. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2021)03ILR A586
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.03.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.

Writ-A (Rent Control) No. 71464 of 2010
Connected with
Writ-A (Rent Control) No. 52191 of 2011

Km. Anshu Jain & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Suresh Prakash Garg & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Nagendra Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sanjai Srivastava, Sri Ajit Kumar, Sri Vivek
Srivastava

A.
Civil
Law
-
UP
Urban
Building
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972 - S. 21 (1) (a) - Eviction suit -
Release of shop - Compromise-deed - Its
execution between parties not disputed -
Overriding
effect
of
statute
over
compromise-deed - Doctrine of Estoppel -
Applicability - Where protection under the
Rent Act is available, no eviction can be
ordered unless ground seeking eviction is
made out, even if parties had entered into
a compromise - However, a party cannot
be permitted blow hot - blow cold, where
he knowingly accepts the benefit of a
contract, or conveyance, or of an order, he
is estopped from denying the validity of,
or the binding effect of such contract, or
conveyance, or order upon himself. This