# Hari Shankar v. Rakesh Kumar

- **Citation:** (2025) 1 ILRA 387
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-01-09
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 15637 of 2024
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/hari-shankar-v-rakesh-kumar-54887
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Law
-
U.P.
Urban
Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972 - Section 21(1)(a) - Release
application - Bonafide need - Tenant's
plea that landlord's son already running
business independently in two other shops
-
GST
documents
showing
son
as
proprietor held irrelevant as they related
to period prior to institution of release
application - No document of relevant
year filed to establish son's independence
- Cancellation of GSTIN in son's name in
2018
-
Relevance
of
documentary
evidence is to be judged with reference to
date of institution of case-Landlord's need
to settle son in business held genuine -
Finding
of
Prescribed
Authority
and
Appellate Court affirming bonafide need
not perverse - Petition dismissed. (Paras
10 and 11)

HELD:
From the perusal of the documents that have
been
brought
on
record
by
means
of
supplementary affidavit filed by petitioner, he
admits that these were the only documents in
the form of GST receipts that were led in
evidence and evidence is always said to be
relevant and cogent to return a finding on facts
and issues if it relates to a fact position as to
the consideration of a point on the date of
institution of the case. Relevancy of documents
as to the facts in issue would therefore, would
be determinable as to status on the date of
institution of the case. In the present case I find
that the document that has been lead in
evidence by the petitioner in support of the
averment made in the written St.ment that son
was independently settled in a business in the
name of Sanskar Traders were not of the year
2020 and onwards while the release for bona
fide needs was set up in the year 2020 for the
first time. Any document that showed that GST
receipts were issued in the name of Sanskar
Traders with Akash Varshney as proprietor of
the firm would have been relevant had it been
388 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the relevant year of release case being
instituted. Moreover, I find that the 2018 GST
receipt showed itself that the GSTIN number
standing in the name of Sanskar Traders with
Akash Varshney as proprietor came to be
cancelled. A document evidencing a factm of
cancellation of registration of firm for GST would
not have been relevant enough in support of the
averments that son Akash Varshney was doing
independent business. Evidence is led to prove a
fact, relevant to issue. So evidence becomes a
medium to prove a fact pleaded. Evidence of
course, can be oral or documetary. A party not
able to prove a fact would be certainly leading
documentary evidence or material but such
evidence must be relevant to the fact in issue.
Sometime an inference can be drawn from a
document filed but in instant case since the
GSTN receipt itself showed that Sanskar Trader's
TIN in the name of Akash stood cancelled, only
adverse inference could have been drawn. The
court of appeal, therefore, was fully justified in
ignoring the said document and placing more
reliance upon the averments made by the
petitioner himself that son was doing business
with his father. Even otherwise the document
brought on records by means of supplementary
affidavit of the landlord respondents shows that
since September, 2018 onwards the firm stood
registered in the name of Rakesh Varshney only
as proprietor of the firm. (Para 10)

Thus, if the son has been doing business
with his father, he has every right to get
settled independently in a business and
father is absolutely justified in setting up a
need for the release of the shop in question
to settle his son. Need therefore, was liable
to be rendered as bona fide and I do not see
any manifest error either in law or on facts
in the orders passed by the Prescribed
Authority as well as by the appellate court.
(Para 11)

Petition dismissed. (E-14)

## Text

1 All. Hari Shankar Vs. Rakesh Kumar
387

9. Facts of this case are fully covered
with the parameters laid down by the Apex
Court in Amardeep Singh (Supra). In the
present case, both the parties are living
separately since 20.12.2021 and also filed
divorce petition jointly. Apart that, earlier
attempts of mediation was failed, but later
on, in another proceeding, mediation took
place between the parties with agreement to
dissolve the marriage and withdraw the
criminal cases pending between them.
Therefore, under such facts, there is no
occasion to direct the petitioner to wait for
cooling off period as provided in Section
13-B(2) of Act, 1955.

10. Therefore, under such facts of the
case as well as law laid down by the Apex
Court
in
Amardeep
Singh
(Supra),
impugned order dated 11.09.2024 is bad
and hereby set aside.

11. Writ petition is accordingly,
allowed.

12. No order as to costs.

13. Principal Judge, Family Court,
Ghazipur is directed to proceed with the
divorce petition waiving off the cooling
period of six months as provided in Section
13-B(2) of Act, 1955.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 387
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 15637 of 2024

Hari Shankar ...Petitioner
Versus
Rakesh Kumar ...Respondent
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Pankaj Agarwal

Counsel for the Respondent:
Akanksha Gaur

Civil
Law
-
U.P.
Urban
Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972 - Section 21(1)(a) - Release
application - Bonafide need - Tenant's
plea that landlord's son already running
business independently in two other shops
-
GST
documents
showing
son
as
proprietor held irrelevant as they related
to period prior to institution of release
application - No document of relevant
year filed to establish son's independence
- Cancellation of GSTIN in son's name in
2018
-
Relevance
of
documentary
evidence is to be judged with reference to
date of institution of case-Landlord's need
to settle son in business held genuine -
Finding
of
Prescribed
Authority
and
Appellate Court affirming bonafide need
not perverse - Petition dismissed. (Paras
10 and 11)

HELD:
From the perusal of the documents that have
been
brought
on
record
by
means
of
supplementary affidavit filed by petitioner, he
admits that these were the only documents in
the form of GST receipts that were led in
evidence and evidence is always said to be
relevant and cogent to return a finding on facts
and issues if it relates to a fact position as to
the consideration of a point on the date of
institution of the case. Relevancy of documents
as to the facts in issue would therefore, would
be determinable as to status on the date of
institution of the case. In the present case I find
that the document that has been lead in
evidence by the petitioner in support of the
averment made in the written St.ment that son
was independently settled in a business in the
name of Sanskar Traders were not of the year
2020 and onwards while the release for bona
fide needs was set up in the year 2020 for the
first time. Any document that showed that GST
receipts were issued in the name of Sanskar
Traders with Akash Varshney as proprietor of
the firm would have been relevant had it been
388 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the relevant year of release case being
instituted. Moreover, I find that the 2018 GST
receipt showed itself that the GSTIN number
standing in the name of Sanskar Traders with
Akash Varshney as proprietor came to be
cancelled. A document evidencing a factm of
cancellation of registration of firm for GST would
not have been relevant enough in support of the
averments that son Akash Varshney was doing
independent business. Evidence is led to prove a
fact, relevant to issue. So evidence becomes a
medium to prove a fact pleaded. Evidence of
course, can be oral or documetary. A party not
able to prove a fact would be certainly leading
documentary evidence or material but such
evidence must be relevant to the fact in issue.
Sometime an inference can be drawn from a
document filed but in instant case since the
GSTN receipt itself showed that Sanskar Trader's
TIN in the name of Akash stood cancelled, only
adverse inference could have been drawn. The
court of appeal, therefore, was fully justified in
ignoring the said document and placing more
reliance upon the averments made by the
petitioner himself that son was doing business
with his father. Even otherwise the document
brought on records by means of supplementary
affidavit of the landlord respondents shows that
since September, 2018 onwards the firm stood
registered in the name of Rakesh Varshney only
as proprietor of the firm. (Para 10)

Thus, if the son has been doing business
with his father, he has every right to get
settled independently in a business and
father is absolutely justified in setting up a
need for the release of the shop in question
to settle his son. Need therefore, was liable
to be rendered as bona fide and I do not see
any manifest error either in law or on facts
in the orders passed by the Prescribed
Authority as well as by the appellate court.
(Para 11)

Petition dismissed. (E-14)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by
learned counsel appearing for petitioner as
well as supplementary affidavit filed by
learned counsel appearing for respondent
landlord are taken on records.

2. Heard Shri Pankaj Agarwal, learned
counsel appearing for petitioner and Ms.
Akansha Gaur, learned Advocate appearing
for respondent landlord.

3. By means of this petition filed
under Article 227 of the Constitution,
petitioner has questioned the order passed
Prescribed Authority granting release in
favour of landlord respondent qua demise
premises under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P.
Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting,
Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short
?Act No. 13 of 1972?) on the point of bona
fide
need.
Petitioner
unsuccessfully
questioned the order in appeal and, hence,
the order passed by the appellate authority
dated 18.10.2024 is also under challenged.

4. The main argument that has been
advanced questioning the findings returned
by the Prescribed Authority as well as the
court of appeal by learned counsel
appearing for petitioner Mr. Agarwal, is
that he had lead sufficient document of
GST forms qua registration of firm,
namely,
Sanskar
Traders
which
demonstrated the GSTIN number of the
business which was both in the name of
father and the son and the son was since
paying tax, therefore, the son cannot be
said to be doing business absolutely in
subordination of his father and this also
corroborated the averments made in the
written statement by the petitioner that
there were three shops in possession of
landlord respondent, out of which in two
shops business was going on. It is
submitted that even if the son was doing
business of the father, since there were two
shops in possession of the landlord
respondents, therefore, one of the shops
1 All. Hari Shankar Vs. Rakesh Kumar
389
could have gone to the needy son very
conveniently and, hence, the need was not a
bona fide one.

5. In support of his above submission,
learned counsel for petitioner has taken the
Court to page Nos. 49 to 53 of the
supplementary affidavit which are receipt
of the Goods and Service Taxes in which
the TIN number of the firm is there
showing that the business was in the name
of Akash Varshney and since it was a
proprietorship firm, therefore, it was
sufficiently proved that the entire business
was being run by Akash Varshney, the son
and he was, therefore, running the business
independently. It is further submitted that
the court of appeal had not adverted to this
aspect of the matter at all and even while it
referred to these documents, it did not deal
with them and merely relied upon the
statement made by the tenant petitioner
before the Prescribed Authority that both
father and son were doing business jointly.
It is thus, submitted that the judgment and
order passed by the Prescribed Authority
and the order affirming the judgment by
appellate authority are both suffering from
the vice of perversity having overlooked
the relevant documents.

6. Per contra, Ms. Akansha Gour,
learned Advocate appearing for respondent
landlord, meeting the arguments advanced
on behalf of petitioner submitted that the
release application itself was filed in the
year 2020 whereas the documents that have
been brought on record in the form of GST
receipts to demonstrate that business was
being run as proprietorship firm of son
Akash Varshney, was only of the year
running between 2017-2018. She submitted
that in 2018, the GSTIN number came to be
cancelled and a new proprietorship firm in
the name of Sanskar Traders with father
Rakesh Varshney as proprietor of the firm
came into existence with effect from
10.09.2018.

7. In support of her above submission
she has also filed a supplementary affidavit
in which the GST receipts have been
brought on record which contain GSTIN
number in the name of proprietorship firm
of Rakesh Varshney. She has also argued
that since this document which has been
filed at page 53 of the supplementary
affidavit by the petitioner was there before
the
courts
below
and
which
itself
demonstrated that the GSTIN registration
of the proprietorship firm in the name of
Akash Varshney have stood cancelled, the
court below rightly placed reliance upon
the statement of the petitioner that both the
father and son were doing business in the
year 2020 jointly. The document, therefore,
according to her sufficiently demonstrated
that son was virtually a helping hand to his
father in the business which was being run
chiefly by the father in the year 2020 when
the release application came to be filed.

8. It is also argued by Ms. Gour that
the theory of three shops set up by
petitioner was also not correct because the
survey
commission
report
sufficiently
demonstrated that there were only two
shops that were found during survey on the
spot.

9. Having heard learned counsel for
respective parties, their arguments raised
across Bar, the only point that I see requires
consideration and that has also been
pressed by learned counsel for petitioner, is
as to whether the court of appeal was
justified in ignoring the GST receipts while
arriving at a finding that bona fide need
was there to grant release and so was
rightly done by the Prescribed Authority.
390 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. From the perusal of the documents
that have been brought on record by means
of
supplementary
affidavit
filed
by
petitioner, he admits that these were the
only documents in the form of GST
receipts that were led in evidence and
evidence is always said to be relevant and
cogent to return a finding on facts and
issues if it relates to a fact position as to the
consideration of a point on the date of
institution of the case. Relevancy of
documents as to the facts in issue would
therefore, would be determinable as to
status on the date of institution of the case.
In the present case I find that the document
that has been lead in evidence by the
petitioner in support of the averment made
in the written statement that son was
independently settled in a business in the
name of Sanskar Traders were not of the
year 2020 and onwards while the release
for bona fide needs was set up in the year
2020 for the first time. Any document that
showed that GST receipts were issued in
the name of Sanskar Traders with Akash
Varshney as proprietor of the firm would
have been relevant had it been of the relevant
year of release case being instituted.
Moreover, I find that the 2018 GST receipt
showed itself that the GSTIN number
standing in the name of Sanskar Traders with
Akash Varshney as proprietor came to be
cancelled. A document evidencing a factm of
cancellation of registration of firm for GST
would not have been relevant enough in
support of the averments that son Akash
Varshney was doing independent business.
Evidence is led to prove a fact, relevant to
issue. So evidence becomes a medium to
prove a fact pleaded. Evidence of course, can
be oral or documetary. A party not able to
prove a fact would be certainly leading
documentary evidence or material but such
evidence must be relevant to the fact in issue.
Sometime an inference can be drawn from a
document filed but in instant case since the
GSTN receipt itself showed that Sanskar
Trader's TIN in the name of Akash stood
cancelled, only adverse inference could have
been drawn. The court of appeal, therefore,
was fully justified in ignoring the said
document and placing more reliance upon the
averments made by the petitioner himself that
son was doing business with his father. Even
otherwise the document brought on records
by means of supplementary affidavit of the
landlord respondents shows that since
September, 2018 onwards the firm stood
registered in the name of Rakesh Varshney
only as proprietor of the firm.

11. Thus, if the son has been doing
business with his father, he has every right
to get settled independently in a business
and father is absolutely justified in setting
up a need for the release of the shop in
question to settle his son. Need therefore,
was liable to be rendered as bona fide and I
do not see any manifest error either in law
or on facts in the orders passed by the
Prescribed Authority as well as by the
appellate court.

12. Petition lacks merits and is
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 390
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Special Appeal No. 367 of 2024

Shiv Dutt Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents