# M/s Classic Rugs Pvt. Ltd v. Asstt. Commissioner (Assessment), T.T. and another

- **Citation:** (2002) 2 ILRA 407
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-05-24
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5315 of 1989
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-classic-rugs-pvt-ltd-v-asstt-commissioner-assessment-t-t-and-another-39906
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972- section 21
(1)(a)-
the
question
of
bonafide
requirement of the premises as well as
that of comparative need are questions
of fact and, therefore, High Court has no
power to correct the question of fact
even if erroneously decided. (Held in
para 9).

This
writ
petition
deserves
to
be
dismissed as no ground for interference
is made out and is hereby dismissed. The
interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Case Law Preferred
(1) JT 2002 (1) SC 254
(2) JT 2002 (1) SC 225
(3) 2001(1) ARC 176
(4) AIR 1983 SC 535
(5) AIR 1975 SC 1296
(6) AIR 1974 SC 1696
(7) 1976 U.P.R.C.C. 376
(8) 1976 UPRCC 342
(9) 1977 UPRCC 230
(10) 1996 (2) ARC 409
(11) 1997 (1) ARC 627
(12) AIR 2001 SC 807
(13) 1998 (2) ARC 148
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
408

## Text

2 All] M/s Classic Rugs Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner (Assessment), T.T. and another
407
Court has power on the basis of opinion
of the Board to consider the case of
revival. In our view, the High Court
referred to in Sub-section (2) of Section
20 of 'The Act' is Delhi High Court,
where winding up proceeding is pending.
Section 20 of 'The Act' relates to winding
up after the matter is referred to the High
Court for passing an order of winding up.
It is open to the High Court in the said
proceedings to consider all aspects of the
matter and to find out if company could
be revived. The said provision in our view
can
not
apply
to
the
facts
and
circumstances of present writ petition. It
will be open for the company to approach
appropriate Court where winding up
proceeding is pending, if the High Court
deems fit and proper to revive the
company. The contention of Mr. Goyal on
this aspect of the matter, therefore, can
not be accepted. Mr. Goyal has also relied
upon decision of Madras High Court in
the case of J.M. Malhotra Vs. Union of
India (1997 Company Cases, Vol. 89,
600). The principle relied upon in the said
decision can not be disputed, although in
our view the same does not apply to the
facts and circumstances of the instant
case. In the aforesaid decision the matter
came up for consideration before the
Madras High Court under section 20 for
winding up. As we have already noted, it
is open to the winding-up Court to
consider all aspect of the matter including
the viability of the revival of the company
at the stage of winding-up. The said
principle enunciated in the aforesaid
decision, in our view, does not come to
the aid of the writ petitioner.

6. Considering all aspects of the
matter we are of the view that the writ
petition is devoid of any merit and is
liable to be dismissed. The same is
accordingly dismissed without any order
as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.5.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5315 of 1989

Sri Bhola Nath Verma

...Petitioner
Versus
Vth Additional District Judge, Kanpur
Nagar and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shashi Kant Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972- section 21
(1)(a)-
the
question
of
bonafide
requirement of the premises as well as
that of comparative need are questions
of fact and, therefore, High Court has no
power to correct the question of fact
even if erroneously decided. (Held in
para 9).

This
writ
petition
deserves
to
be
dismissed as no ground for interference
is made out and is hereby dismissed. The
interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Case Law Preferred
(1) JT 2002 (1) SC 254
(2) JT 2002 (1) SC 225
(3) 2001(1) ARC 176
(4) AIR 1983 SC 535
(5) AIR 1975 SC 1296
(6) AIR 1974 SC 1696
(7) 1976 U.P.R.C.C. 376
(8) 1976 UPRCC 342
(9) 1977 UPRCC 230
(10) 1996 (2) ARC 409
(11) 1997 (1) ARC 627
(12) AIR 2001 SC 807
(13) 1998 (2) ARC 148
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
408
(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.)

1. In pursuance of the order passed
by me on 15th March, 2002 this petition
is being heard on merits for final disposal
with the consent of the learned counsel
for the parties.

2. This is a tenant petition arising
out of the proceedings under Section
21(1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
The brief facts of the case are that the
respondent no. 3, who is the landlord of
the
premises
No.
118/479
(1),
Kaushalpuri, Kanpur, filed an application
for release of the shop in question under
Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13
of 1972, hereinafter shall be referred to as
the 'Act', on the ground that the landlord
requires the aforesaid shop for his
bonafide purposes and the tilts of the
comparative hardship is in favour of the
landlord. The Prescribed Authority issued
notices to both the parties. The parties
have exchanged their pleadings and also
their evidence. The Prescribed Authority
after considering the pleadings and
evidence on record allowed the release
application on 09.10.1987, Annexure-10
to the writ petition, and directed to release
the shop in question after recording the
findings that the shop in question is
bonafide required by the landlord and also
the comparative hardship tilts in favour of
the landlord. Aggrieved by the order
dated
09.10.1987,
passed
by
the
Prescribed Authority, petitioner-tenant
preferred an appeal as contemplated under
Section 22 of the Act before the Appellate
Authority, which too has been dismissed
by the Appellate Authority vide its order
dated 25.02.1989.

3. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner aggrieved by the
orders of the Prescribed Authority as well
as Appellate Authority, who have held
that the need of the landlord is bonafide
and comparison of the need also finds in
favour of the landlord allowed the release
application and the Appellate Authority
has dismissed the appeal filed by the
petitioner-tenant, tried to assail before this
Court the findings recorded by both the
Court below and submitted that the
findings recorded by the Prescribed
Authority and affirmed by the Appellate
Authority do not make out a case that the
landlord either requires the shop in
question for bonafide need, or the
comparison of the hardship has been
judged in the correct prospective and thus
submitted that the orders impugned in the
present writ petition deserve to be set
aside and the application filed by the
landlord deserves to be rejected on this
ground. I have gone through the findings
recorded by the Prescribed Authority as
well as by the Appellate Authority, I do
not find any error, much less an error of
law as suggested by learned counsel for
the petitioner.

4. In the teeth of the concurrent
findings of fact recorded by both the
Courts below, this Court will not interfere
in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
thereafter submitted that during the
pendency of the appeal before the
Appellate Authority, one shop, which was
occupied by some other tenant, came in
the possession of the landlord as the
tenant of that shop left the shop and
handover the possession thereof to the
landlord. This fact should have been taken
into account by the Appellate Authority,
but this fact was not brought on the record
2 All] Bhola Nath Verma Vs. Vth A.D.J., Kanpur Nagar and others
409
before the Appellate Authority when the
appeal was decided and has been brought
on record of this writ petition by filing a
supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel
for the petitioner relied upon two
decisions of the apex Court arising out of
Punjab
and
Haryana
Development
Authority with regard to the premises,
which was let out by the Haryana Urban
Development
Authority
under
the
provisions of Rent Control Act of the
State. The said Act is not applicable,
which is reported in JT 2002 (1) SC 254-
Om Prakash Gupta Versus Ranbir B.
Goyal. The another decision relied upon
by petitioner's learned counsel is reported
in JT 2002(1), SC 225- Paul George
Versus State, in which it has been held
that 'no reasons have been recorded for
arriving at the conclusion that the
accommodation in question is bona fide
required by the landlord'. The relevant
portion of the aforesaid judgement is
quoted below:-

"It is true that it may depend upon
the nature of the matter which is being
dealt with by the Court and the nature of
jurisdiction being exercised as to in what
manner the reasons may be recorded e.g.
in an order of affirmance detailed reasons
of discussion may not be necessary but
some
brief
indication
by
which
application of mind may be traceable to
affirm an order, would certainly be
required. Mere ritual of repeating the
words or language used in the provisions,
saying that no illegality, impropriety or
jurisdictional error is found in the
judgement under challenge without even a
whisper of the merit of the matter or
nature of pleas raised, does not meet the
requirement of decision of a case
judicially."

6. Learned counsel for the landlordrespondent
replying
the
aforesaid
arguments has relied upon a decision
reported in 1988 (2) Allahabad Rent
Cases, 108. Paragraph 23 whereof is
reproduced below:-

"23. On the date of hearing of this
petition, an application was filed by the
petitioner
stating
therein
that
Dr.
Himanshu
Garg,
Respondent
No.3,
alongwith his wife, Dr. Bindu Garg, has
opened a Clinic-Cum-Nursing Home in
the name and style of City Clinic
Maternity Nursing Home at B.S. College,
G.T. Road, Aligarh, on 10th November,
1985, and, consequently, it was alleged
that this was a subsequent event and,
consequently, the need set up in the
release application has ceased to exist. In
reply to this application, a counter
affidavit has been filed by Dr. Sudhanshu
Garg wherein it has been stated that since
Dr. Sudhanshu Garg had completed his
M.D. in the year 1984 and was without a
job, he was advised to make a temporary
arrangement for starting a clinic. It has
been further stated that he along with his
wife, who is also a doctor, took on rent a
small premises measuring 30' x 20' as a
temporary measure for starting a small
clinic. The said premises has been taken
on an exorbitant rent of Rs.900/- per
month and that his arrangement is only a
make shift arrangement. In fact, this
subsequent event itself proves the bona
fide
need
of
the
landlord.
This
circumstance goes against the petitioner.
His case, that the landlords do not require
the accommodation, is believed by this
action on the part of the respondentlandlords. It is further clear consequently
that, in fact, the landlord respondents are
doctors and are without job, consequently
they require the accommodation in
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
410
question.
In
the circumstances, the
subsequent event, in fact, has no effect in
the release application. On the other hand,
it established more clearly the bona-fide
need of the respondent-landlord."

7. The another decisions relied upon
by learned counsel for the respondentlandlord are reported in 2001 (1)
Allahabad Rent Cases, 176- Pradeep
Kumar Rastogi Versus XVIth Additional
District Judge, Meerut and 2 others;
A.I.R. 1983 S.C., 535 - Smt. Labhkumar
Bhagwani
Shaha
Versus
Janardan
Mahadeo Kalan; A.I.R. 1975 S.C., 1296 -
Babhutmal Raichand Versus Laximbai
and A.I.R. 1974 S.C., 1696- Nattu Lal
Versus Radhey. In A.I.R. 1974 S.C., 1696,
it has been held "High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution has no
power to reappraise evidence and to
record its own finding." In A.I.R. 1975,
S.C. 1296 the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that "the High Court has no
jurisdiction
under
Article
227
to
reconsider the evidence."

8. The law laid down in this case is
applied to the facts of the present case
under Article 226 of the Constitution as
well. This Court in the case of Ram
Rakesh Pal and others Versus 1st
Additional District Judge and others,
reported in 1976 UPRCC 376, has held
that
"the
question
of
bona
fide
requirement of the premises as well as
that of comparative need are questions of
fact and, therefore, High Court has no
power to correct the question of fact even
if erroneously decided." A reference may
also be made to the decision of this Court
in the case of Jagan Prasad Versus
District Judge and others, reported in
1976 UPRCC 342; Laxmi Narain Versus
IInd Additional District Judge and others,
reported in 1977 UPRCC, 230; and Smt.
Nirmala Tandon Versus Xth Additional
District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, reported in
1996 (2) A.R.C., 409. The matter has
recently been considered by the apex
Court in the case of Kamleshwar Prasad
Versus Pradumanju Agarwal, reported in
1997 (1) A.R.C. 627, wherein it was held
that "under the Act, the order of the
Appellate Authority is final and the said
order is a decree of the Civil Court and a
decree of a competent Court having
become final cannot be interfered with by
the High Court in exercise of its power of
superintendence under Article 226 and
227 of the constitution of India by taking
into account any subsequent event which
might have happened. That apart, it was
further observed that the fact that the
landlord needed the premises in question
for starting a business which fact has
been found by the Appellate Authority, in
the eye of law, must be that on the day of
application for eviction, which is the
crucial day, the tenant incurred the
liability of being evicted from the
premises. The finality of the decisions
cannot be disturbed on account of any
subsequent events on a petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
This view has been endorsed by the apex
Court in the case reported in A.I.R. 2001
S.C., 807 Gaya Prasad (supra). Learned
counsel for the respondent-landlord has
further relied upon a case reported in
A.R.C., 1998 (2), 148 and also other
cases on this issue have been relied upon
by the landlord counsel. In this view of
the matter, the contention of learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner cannot be accepted wherein it
has been stated that the fact which has
been sought to be brought on record of the
writ petition for the first time even if it
has not been taken into account and
2 All] Ram Babu and others Vs. State of U.P. and another
411
possibly the same could not have taken
into account because of the fact that for
the first time it has been brought on the
record of writ petition vitiates the orders
impugned in the present writ petition,
which as stated above, are otherwise do
not warrant any interference by this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India as the same are covered by the
concurrent findings of fact. No other point
was urged by learned counsel for the
petitioner.

9. In view of what has been stated
above, this writ petition deserves to be
dismissed as no ground for interference is
made out and is hereby dismissed. The
interim order, if any, sands vacated.
However, in the facts and circumstances
of the case the parties shall bear their own
costs.
---------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD APRIL 03, 2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M.C. JAIN, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1756 of 2001

Ram Babu and others
 ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. and another

 ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Tejpal

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.
Sri Amar Saran

Code of Criminal Procedure-section 319
is not to be controlled by the result of
the investigation. In exercising power
under section 319 Cr.P.C. the Court is to
be guided by the evidence that has come
before it (held in para 10 & 11).

In view of the evidence that has come up
before the Court at the trial they have to
be tried for the offences in question
alongwith Guddu, who was already
facing trial.

The impugned order passed by learned
Trial Judge is perfectly justified, not
suffering from any illegality, impropriety
or
incorrectness.
The
revision
is
dismissed.
Case Law Preferred
(1) (2) JIC 5 (SC)

(Delivered by Hon'ble M.C. Jain, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
revisionists, learned A.G.A. for O.P. no. 1
and Sri Amar Saran, learned counsel for
the opposite party no.2- complaint.

2. Through this revision the
revisionists seek to challenge the order
dated 27.6.2001 passed by the Sessions
Judge Jhansi under Section 319 Cr.P.C.
summoning them as accused in S.T. No.
112 of 2000. Notice had been issued to
the complainant-opposite party no.2 also
as per the order dated 11.7.2001 and he
put in appearance through his counsel to
oppose the revision, which is opposed by
learned A.G.A. also on behalf of the
State-opposite party no.1.

3. The brief resume of facts is
necessary
for
understanding
the
controversy properly. One Pramod Kumar
was murdered in this incident and his
brother Santosh Kumar sustained injuries.
Both of them sustained injuries of
firearm. Incident took place on 18.4.1999
at 11.30 a.m. and report was lodged 45
minutes later by an eye-witness Suresh
Kumar (brother of the deceased and