# Gauri Shankar Prajapati v. Ravikul Bansal 1586 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 1585
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-21
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 1597 of 2024
- **Bench:** Ashutosh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gauri-shankar-prajapati-v-ravikul-bansal-1586-indian-law-reports-allahabad-51752
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Tenancy Law - U.P. Urban Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972 - Sections 21(1)(a) - Release of
shop - Bona fide need - Alternative
accommodation available to the landlord,
how far adversely effect bona fide need -
Landlord claimed need to set U.P. business
of Digital Printing for son - Permissibility
- Both court below gave finding of fact on
bona fide in favour of landlord - Scope of
Interference - Held, the need of the
premises as set U.P. in the release
application is required to be evaluated viz
a
viz
the
available
alternate
accommodation. A conclusion need not be
drawn that the need of the landlord is not
genuine or bona fide merely on the ground
that he is in possession of alternative
accommodation - The business of Digital
Printing is to be carried out at one place
and it would not be feasible to carry on
the said business in different spaces. The
other accommodations though available to
the landlord can not be utilized for
satisfying the need as set U.P. - Findings
of fact have been recorded by both
Authorities on the question of bona fide
need and comparative hardship which
findings are based on proper appreciation
of
the
materials
on
record
and
consideration of the correct law. The
findings of fact recorded do not call for
any interference. (Para 13, 16 and 17)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of cases cited :-

## Text

4 All. Gauri Shankar Prajapati Vs. Ravikul Bansal
1585
उपरांत यि पाया हक याधचकाकताजगण की
भूधम के बदिे पूिज खातेदार की कोई भूधम
को अधतररि घोवषत हकया जाना संभि निीं
िै, हकंतु उपरोि आदेि का पररणाम ििी िुआ
जो हक पूिज आदेि हदनांक 17.06.1999 का
र्था। उपरोि पररम्स्र्थधतयों में, यद्यवप धनयत
प्राधिकारी ने यि किने में भाषा की र्त्रुहर् की
िै हक पूिज आदेि हदनांक 17.06.1999 पुष्ट
हकया जाता िै, तर्थावप आदेि गित अर्थिा
अिैिाधनक निीं िै। अतः मार्त्र भाषा की र्त्रुहर्
के कारण आदेि में कोई िस्तक्षेप करना
उधचत निीं िोगा।

19.

अपीिीय
आदेि
हदनांक
05.10.2002 में अपर आयुि ने यि पाया िै
हक अपीिकताजगण के वपता के पक्ष में
वििय-पर्त्र िषज 1973 में िुआ र्था, जो हक
सीमारोपण अधिधनयम के संदभज धतधर्थ
24.01.1971 के बाद का िै। सीमारोपण
अधिधनयम की िारा 5(6) के अनुसार हदनांक
24.01.1971 के उपरांत हकया गया अधतररि
भूधम का कोई भी अन्तरण तब तक िैि निीं
िोगा, जब तक धनयत प्राधिकारी को यि
संतोष न िो जाए हक अन्तरण सदािय से
उधचत प्रधतफि देकर हकया गया िो तर्था यि
अन्तरण एक बेनामी अन्तरण न िो एिं
उपरोि ितों को धसद्ध करने का भार ऐसे
व्यवि पर िै जो इस अन्तरण से िाभ का
दािा कर रिा िो। याधचकाकताज ने उपरोि
ितों को धसद्ध करने के धिए कोई भी साक्ष्य
प्रस्तुत निीं हकया तर्था ऐसी पररम्स्र्थधत में
संदभज धतधर्थ हदनांक 24.01.1971 के पश्चात
िुए वििय-पर्त्र के आिार पर कोई भी िाभ
का दािा निीं कर सकते िैं।

20. भारतीय संवििान के अनुच्िेद 226 के
अन्तगजत यि न्यायािय अपनी िवियों का
प्रयोग न्यायहित में तब करती िै, जब ऐसा न
करने से न्याय के उद्देश्यों की पूधतज न िो
पाए तर्था मार्त्र तकनीकी आिारों पर
न्यायािय अनुच्िेद 226 के अन्तगजत अपनी
वििेकािीन िवियों का प्रयोग निीं करती िै।

21. जब हक उपरोि वििेचना से यि
स्पष्ट िै हक आिोच्य आदेिों में कोई ऐसी
र्त्रुहर् निीं िै, म्जससे याधचकाकताजगण के सार्थ
अन्याय िुआ िो, मार्त्र भाषा की र्त्रुहर् अनुच्िेद
226 की िवियों को प्रयोग करने का उधचत
आिार निीं प्रदान करती िैं।

22. तदनुसार, ररर् याधचका बििीन
िै और धनरस्त की जाती िै।
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 1585
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-A No. 1597 of 2024
Along With
Writ-A No. 1674 of 2024 and 1747 of 2024

Gauri Shankar Prajapati ...Petitioner
Versus
Ravikul Bansal ...Respondent
1586 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rishikesh Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ashish Agrawal, Rahul Agarwal

A. Tenancy Law - U.P. Urban Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972 - Sections 21(1)(a) - Release of
shop - Bona fide need - Alternative
accommodation available to the landlord,
how far adversely effect bona fide need -
Landlord claimed need to set U.P. business
of Digital Printing for son - Permissibility
- Both court below gave finding of fact on
bona fide in favour of landlord - Scope of
Interference - Held, the need of the
premises as set U.P. in the release
application is required to be evaluated viz
a
viz
the
available
alternate
accommodation. A conclusion need not be
drawn that the need of the landlord is not
genuine or bona fide merely on the ground
that he is in possession of alternative
accommodation - The business of Digital
Printing is to be carried out at one place
and it would not be feasible to carry on
the said business in different spaces. The
other accommodations though available to
the landlord can not be utilized for
satisfying the need as set U.P. - Findings
of fact have been recorded by both
Authorities on the question of bona fide
need and comparative hardship which
findings are based on proper appreciation
of
the
materials
on
record
and
consideration of the correct law. The
findings of fact recorded do not call for
any interference. (Para 13, 16 and 17)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of cases cited :-

1. Hasmat Rai & anr. Vs Raghunath Prasad;
1981 (3) SCC 103

2. Shiv SarU.P. GU.P.ta Vs Dr. Mahesh Chand
GU.P.ta; AIR 1999 SC 2507: 1999 (6) SCC 222

3. M.M. Quasim Vs Manohar Lal Sharma; AIR
1981 SC 1113
4. Sarla Ahuja Vs United India Insurance Comp.
Ltd.; 1998 (8) SCC 119

5. M/s Sait Nagjee Purushotham & Co. Ltd. Vs
Vimalabai Prabhulal & ors.; 2003 (8) SCC 252

6.
Badrinarayan
Chemical
Bhutada
Vs
Govindram Ramgopal Mundada; 2003 (2) SCC
320

7. Mohd. Ayub & anr. Vs Mukesh Chand; 2012
(2) SCC 155

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashutosh
Srivastava, J.)

1. All the above referred writ petitions
involve identical questions of law and facts.
The Writ Petition (A) No. 1597 of 2024 is
being treated as the leading writ petition
and the facts pertaining to the same is being
considered for deciding the controversy
involved.

2. Heard Shri Rishikesh Tripathi,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri
Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the
caveator/respondent.

3. The instant writ petition, at the
instance of the tenant/petitioner, has been
filed assailing the judgment and order dated
6.1.2024 passed by the learned Addl.
District Judge, Banda in Rent Control
Appeal No. 8 of 2022 as also the judgment
and order dated 24.5.2022 passed by the
learned Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge
(Sr.Div.), Banda in Rent Case No. 5 of
2018
(RaviKul
Bansal
versus
Gauri
Shankar Prajapati).

4. By the judgment and order dated
24.5.2022, the learned Prescribed Authority
allowed the release application under
Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of
1972. By the judgment and order dated
6.1.2024, the Appellate Authority has
4 All. Gauri Shankar Prajapati Vs. Ravikul Bansal
1587
dismissed the Rent Appeal and upheld the
judgment and order of the Prescribed
Authority dated 24.5.2022.

5. The facts shorn of unnecessary
details giving rise to the controversy
involved between the parties are that the
petitioner is a tenant in a shop @ Rs.500/-
per month and is doing hardware business.
The respondent is the landlord. A release
application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the
U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was filed by the
respondent/landlord
against
the
tenant/petitioner setting up a bona fide need
of the premises under the tenancy of the
petitioner for his son Anshul Bansal for
installing a digital printing press, which will
require an area of 2100 square feet. The
business of digital printing press involves
setting up of Colour Printing Machines, Paper
Cutting Machines, Perfect Binding Machines,
Book Binding Machines, Punching and
Creasing
Machine
besides
numerous
computers. It was alleged that the landlord
has got 2086 square feet area in his
possession i.e. area in which the shop under
the tenancy of the petitioner and other tenants
is situate which is best suited for setting up
the printing press.

6. The release application was contested
by the tenant/petitioner by filing written
statement
stating
inter
alia
that
the
landlord/respondent is a man of means
possessed of about 35 shops and 10 to 15
suits have been filed for eviction of the
tenants. The tenant/petitioner filed evidence
in the form of an affidavit stating that the
landlord/respondent
has
alternate
accommodation to cater to his need. He also
filed photographs of the vacant shops and
also got issued Amin Commission.

7. The learned Prescribed Authority
vide
its
judgment
and
order
dated
24.5.2022 allowed the release application
returning the finding of bona fide need in
favour of the landlord/respondent and
against the tenant/petitioner. The finding on
the question of comparative hardship was
also
recorded
in
favour
of
the
landlord/respondent
and
against
the
tenant/petitioner.

8. The tenant/petitioner assailed the
order of the learned Prescribed Authority in
rent appeal. During the pendency of the
appeal, the tenant/petitioner came to know
that some shops have come in possession of
the
landlord/respondent,
which
would
satisfy the need set up and such information
was sought to be brought on record by
filing
an
application
for
adducing
additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27
CPC. The judgment in SCC Case No. 7 of
2015, judgment in SCC Case No. 3 of
2001, judgment in SCC Case No. 1 of 2005
and judgment in Case No. 2 of 2015 were
brought on record to demonstrate that the
subject matter of the SCC Suits decreed in
favour of the landlord/respondent were in
his possession. The premises released were
two compounds in possession of Assistant
Commissioner, Commercial Tax, one shop
of tenant Mahboob Khan, one shop in
possession of tenant Smt. Kamla Devi, one
shop
of
Moti
Lal
Richhariya.
The
application for additional evidence was
allowed.

9. Shri Rishikesh Tripathi, learned counsel
for the tenant/petitioner has assailed the
orders of the Prescribed Authority as also
of the Appellate Authority on the ground
that the learned Prescribed Authority
without considering the evidence on record
allowed
the
release
application.
The
Appellate Authority also committed the
same mistake even though it proceeded to
take on record the additional evidence
1588 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
adduced
by
the
tenant/petitioner
by
allowing the application under Order 41
Rule 27 CPC. It is contended that the
landlord/respondent was possessed with
adequate alternate vacant accommodation
which was suitable to satisfy the need set
up but the Court below failed to consider
the evidence and proceeded to allow the
release application. Reliance has been
placed upon the decision of the Apex Court
reported in 1981 (3) SCC 103 (Hasmat Rai
and another versus Raghunath Prasad) to
buttress the argument that subsequent
events that take place during the pendency
of the proceedings are required to be taken
into consideration for assessing the bona
fide need of the landlord which must
continue to exist till final determination of
the case. Reliance is also placed upon
another decision of the Apex Court
reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court 2507
(Shiv Sarup Gupta versus Dr. Mahesh
Chand Gupta) to buttress the proposition
that requirement of the premises under the
tenancy of a tenant by the landlord must be
more than a mere desire and the availability
of an alternate accommodation with the
landlord may have a bearing on the bona
fide need of the landlord which the Court is
required to consider while deciding the
question of bona fide need. Based on the
above submissions, learned counsel for the
tenant/petitioner submits that both the
orders of the Prescribed Authority and
Appellate Authority are not sustainable and
deserves to be set aside and the writ
petition is liable to be allowed.

10. Per contra, Shri Rahul Agarwal,
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
landlord/respondent
submits
that
both
Authorities have upheld the bona fide need
and comparative hardship in favour of the
landlord/respondent. The findings are based
on cogent grounds and the findings being
findings of fact are not liable to be
interfered with under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The writ petition is
liable to be dismissed at the threshold.
Reliance is placed upon decision of the
Apex Court reported in 1998 (8) SCC 119,
2005 (8) SCC 252, 2003 (2) SCC 320,
2012 (2) SCC 155 and 2007 (4) SCC 465
to submit that it is not for the tenant to
dictate terms to the landlord as to how else
he can adjust himself, it is always the
prerogative of the landlord that if he
requires the premises in question for his
bona fide use for expansion or for setting
up his son, it cannot be said that the need is
not genuine, if landlord is already running a
successful business or that his sons are
already employed, the owner of the
property cannot be denied eviction and
compelled to live poorly merely to enable
tenants to carry on their flourishing
business actively at the cost of the landlord,
the landlord's requirement need be a dire
necessity and that the landlord is the best
judge of his requirement and Courts have
no concern to dictate the landlord as to how
and in what manner, he should live. The
bona fide personal need is a question of
fact and should not be normally interfered
with. It is accordingly prayed that the writ
petition warrants dismissal.

11. I have heard the learned counsels
for the parties and have perused the
record as also the case laws cited by the
counsels.

12. In order to appreciate the rival
submissions of the learned counsels for the
parties, it would be opt to understand as to
what is meant by the terms "bona fide".
The Apex Court in the case of Shiv Sarup
Gupta vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta
reported in 1999 (6) SCC 222 held as
under:-
4 All. Gauri Shankar Prajapati Vs. Ravikul Bansal
1589

"13. ..., the term bona fide or
genuinely refers to a state of mind.
Requirement is not a mere desire. The
degree
of
intensity
contemplated
by
"requires" is much more higher than in
mere desire. The phrase "required b ona
fide" is suggestive of legislative intent that
a mere desire which is the outcome of whim
or fancy is not taken note of by the rent
control legislation. A requirement in the
sense of felt need which is an outcome of a
sincere, honest desire, in contradistinction
with a mere pretence or pretext to evict a
tenant, on the part of the landlord claiming
to occupy the premises for himself or for
any member of the family would entitle him
to seek ejectment of the tenant. Looked at
from this angle, any setting of the facts and
circumstances protruding the need of the
landlord and its bona fides would be
capable of successfully withstanding the
test of objective determination by the court.
The judge of facts should place himself in
the armchair of the landlord and then ask
the question to himself - whether in the
given facts substantiated by the landlord
the need to occupy the premises can be said
to be natural, real, sincere, honest. If the
answer be in the positive, the need is bona
fide. The failure on the part of the landlord
to substantiate the pleaded need, or, in a
given case, positive material brought on
record by the tenant enabling the court
drawing an inference that the reality was to
the contrary and the landlord was merely
attempting at finding out a pretence or
pretext for getting rid of the tenant, would
be enough to persuade the court certainly
to deny its judicial assistance to the
landlord. Once the court is satisfied of the
bona fides of the need of the landlord for
the premises or additional premises by
applying objective standards then in the
matter of choosing out of more than one
accommodation available to the landlord
his subjective choice shall be respected by
the court. The court would permit the
landlord to satisfy the proven need by
choosing the accommodation which the
landlord feels would be most suited for the
purpose; the court would not in such a case
thrust its own wisdom upon the choice of
the landlord by holding that not one but the
other accommodation must be accepted by
the landlord to satisfy his such need. In
short, the concept of bona fide need or
genuine requirement needs a practical
approach instructed by the realities of life.
An approach either too liberal or too
conservative or pedantic must be guarded
against."

13. The availability of an alternate
accommodation with the landlord i.e. an
accommodation other than the one in
occupation of the tenant wherefrom he is
sought to be evicted has a dual relevancy.
Firstly,
the
availability
of
another
accommodation suitable and convenient in
all respects as the accommodation with the
tenant may have an adverse bearing on the
finding as to bona fide need of the
landlord if he unreasonably refuses to
occupy the available premises to satisfy
his alleged need. Availability of such
circumstances would enable the Court
drawing an inference that the need of the
landlord was not bona fide or the state of
mind of the landlord was not honest,
sincere and natural. Secondly, if alternate
accommodation is shown to exist, the
landlord is required to satisfy the Court
that the available accommodation is not
suitable for the need set up. In the opinion
of the Court the need of the premises as
set up in the release application is required
to be evaluated viz a viz the available
alternate accommodation. A conclusion
need not be drawn that the need of the
landlord is not genuine or bona fide
1590 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
merely on the ground that he is in
possession of alternative accommodation.
In M.M. Quasim Vs. Manohar Lal
Sharma, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1113
the Apex Court has held that the landlord
does not have an unfettered right to choose
the premises but merely showing that the
landlord has some other vacant premises
in his possession may not be sufficient to
negative the landlord claim if the vacant
premises were not suitable for the purpose
for which the landlord required the
premises. In Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India
Insurance Company Limited, reported in
1998 (8) SCC 119, the Apex Court held
that
the
Authority
considering
the
requirement of the landlord should not
proceed on assumption that the landlords
requirement should not proceed on the
assumption that the landlords requirement
is not bona fide when a landlord shows a
prima facie case a presumption that the
requirement of the landlord is bona fide is
available to be drawn. It is not for the
tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to
how else he can adjust himself without
giving
possession
of
the
tenanted
premises. While deciding the question of
bona fides of the requirement of the
landlord, it is quite unnecessary to make
an endeavour as to how else the landlord
could have adjusted himself.

14. The above legal position has
further been reiterated by the Apex Court in
the case of M/s Sait Nagjee Purushotham
& Co. Ltd vs Vimalabai Prabhulal & Ors.
reported in 2003 (8) SCC 252, case of
Badrinarayan Chemical Bhutada Vs.
Govindram Ramgopal Mundada reported
in 2003 (2) SCC 320. In the case of Mohd.
Ayub & another Vs. Mukesh Chand
reported in 2012 (2) SCC 155 relied upon
by learned counsel for the landlord/
respondent.

15. Now coming to the need as set up
in the release application, the Court finds
that the landlord / respondent has set up the
need for his son Anshu Bansal who wants
to set up a business of Digital Printing. The
said business requires setting up of Colour
Printing
Machines,
Paper
Cutting
Machines, Perfect Binding Machines, Book
Binding Machines, Punching and Creasing
Machine besides numerous computers. The
requirement is for approx 2100 square ft.
space. The landlord/ respondent is in
possession of approx 2086 square ft. space
as has been depicted in the map along with
the release application. If, the spaces
depicted by unshaded portion in occupation
of tenants including the petitioner whose
tenancy is depicted by Letters B, B1, B2,
B3 is released in favour of the landlord/
respondent, he will have 2086 square ft. of
space which will fulfill his bona fide need.
The other tenanted premises under the
tenancy of Sharda and Shyam Singh are the
subject matters of the connected writ
petitions.

16. In the opinion of the Court, the
business of Digital Printing is to be carried
out at one place and it would not be
feasible to carry on the said business in
different
spaces.
The
other
accommodations though available to the
landlord cannot be utilized for satisfying
the need as set up. The properties available
with the landlord which have been brought
on record by the application under Order 41
Rule 27 CPC as additional evidence are not
at all germane for determining the bona
fide need of the landlord.

17. This Court having gone through
the judgment and orders of the learned
Prescribed Authority as also the Appellate
Authority finds that findings of fact have
been recorded by both Authorities on the
4 All. Ashok Kumar Gautam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1591
question of bona fide need and comparative
hardship which findings are based on
proper appreciation of the materials on
record and consideration of the correct law.
The findings of fact recorded do not call for
any interference by this Court in exercise of
its powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India particularly, in view
of the settled legal position of law that it is
for the landlord to decide how and in what
manner, he should live his own life and
cannot be guided, controlled or restricted
by any third person including the Court.

18. In view of the above, the Court
finds no merit in the writ petitions.
Accordingly, all the aforesaid writ petitions
are dismissed.

19. Parties to bear their own costs.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 1591
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ-A No. 15714 of 2023

Ashok Kumar Gautam ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Vinay Pratap Singh, Suman Kumar Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Abhishek Srivastava, Usha Kiran

A. Service Law - U.P. Power Corporation
Limited Servants (Discipline and Appeal)
Regulations, 2020 - Reg. 7 - Disciplinary
proceeding - Punishment - Award of
withholding
two
increments
with
cumulative effect beside recovery of Rs.
2,61422/-
-
Charge
of
sanctioning
connection without erecting new line and
by securing less metre cable than the
distance
between
the
premises
and
nearest pole was leveled - Inquiry report
did not set out the charge against the
petitioner - No consideration of any
documentary evidence was made - Effect
- Burden of proof, on whom lies - Held,
charges laid by the Establishment against
the employee cannot be taken to be proof
of themselves. It is the burden of the
Establishment to prove the charges, and
like any other judicial proceeding - In the
event, a proper charge-sheet was not
issued to the petitioner, the proceedings
go foul by one more step and oblige the
respondents to issue a fresh and properly
done charge-sheet as well. (Para 25, 26,
29 and 34)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of cases cited :-

1. Roop Singh Negi Vs P.N.B. & ors.; (2009) 2
SCC 570

2. Smt. Karuna Jaiswal Vs St. of U.P.; 2018 (9)
ADJ 107 (DB) (LB)

3. St. of U.P. & anr. Vs Kishori Lal & anr.; 2018
(9) ADJ 397 (DB) (LB)

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This
writ petition
has
been
instituted challenging the order dated
14.06.2021 passed by the Managing
Director, Kanpur Electric Supply Company
Limited, 14/71, Civil Lines, KESA House,
Kanpur holding the petitioner guilty after
disciplinary proceedings and awarding him
the
punishment
of
withholding
two
increments with cumulative effect, besides
recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,09,138.40/-.
Also under challenge is the appellate order
dated 05.04.2023 passed by the Chairman,
Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited,
Lucknow
passed
on
the
petitioner's