# Mohd. Talaha v. Special Judge Ayodhya Prakaran/Addl. D.J. Lko. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 1456
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-16
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 1000071 of 2013
- **Bench:** Manish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohd-talaha-v-special-judge-ayodhya-prakaran-addl-d-j-lko-ors-52203
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Tenancy Law - Bonafide requirement -
Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation
of Letting, Rent and Eviction), 1972 -
Sectiosn 21(1)(a) & 22 - It is unnecessary
to make an endeavour as to how else the
landlord could have adjusted himself. In
the matter of choice of accommodation
some discretion and latitude has to be
given to the landlord and tenant cannot
dictate that landlord shall satisfy his
need in the manner suggested by him.
Courts cannot impose their own wisdom
in advising the landlord the manner in
which he can satisfy his need without
disturbing the possession of the tenant.
(Para 10)

Neither the tenant or the Court could direct the
landlord. It is the choice of the landlord to
choose the place for business which is more
suitable for him. (Para 12)
7 All. Mohd. Talaha Vs. Special Judge Ayodhya Prakaran/Addl. D.J. Lko. & Ors.
1457
The need of the petitioner was ultimately found
bonafide by the Appellate Court. The Appellate
Court should have ordered for the release of the
whole accommodation to meet the bonafide
need of the landlord instead of only a part of it
to the extent of 700 square feet and secondly, it
is also clear that the petitioner had moved the
application for release on not getting the
desired amount of rent will not be relevant
factor though for the question of bonafide need
is concerned and on that ground it could not be
said that the need of the petitioner was artificial
in nature. (Para 15)

B. The finding recorded that the tenant
carries on functions of public convenience
therefore, the accommodation may not be
released in favour of the landlord since it
will cause the inconvenience to the public
has no relevance and it will not undo the
bonafide requirement of the landlord on the
basis of which he is entitled to get the tenanted
accommodation release in his favour. (Para 16)

WRIT - A No. - 1000071 of 2013, filed by
the landlord, allowed.
WRIT - A No. - 1000077 of 2014, filed by
the tenant, dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

1456 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
credit 30 years of qualifying service
and
he
was
not
placed
under
suspension. The theory propounded by
the writ petitioners that since a
decision had been taken on 19.9.2013
for holding departmental proceedings
against the original applicant also
stands eroded particularly when the
charge sheet is dated 10.10.2013 much
after the effective date of voluntarily
retirement.
38. In so far as the submission of
learned counsel for the writ petitioners
that once an Original Application
No.330/00944/2014 has been instituted
by the original applicant before the
tribunal challenging the charge sheet
dated 10.10.2013 and in the wake of
the pendency of the said original
application, it was not appropriate to
decide the original application in
isolation order whereof has been
impugned in the writ petition is
concerned, the same at the first blush
may appear to be attractive but the
same would not hold water particularly
when the cause of action and subject
matter in both the original applications
are distinct and different in that regard.

 39. Despite repeated query being
made to the learned counsel for the
writ petitioners to place the provisions
which
gave
handle
to
the
writ
petitioners/employers to withhold the
retiral benefits in the wake of the
explicit provision contained under
Rule 48 of the Rules, 1972, nothing is
forthcoming.
Even
otherwise,
the
Tribunal in the impugned judgement
has considered each and every aspect
of the matter and has also relied and
followed
the
decisions
of
the
coordinate bench of the Tribunal on
the same issues.

 40. Viewing the case from all
angles, we do not find any manifest
illegality or infirmity committed by the
Tribunal so as to warrant interference
in the present proceedings.

 41. Resultantly, the writ petition is
liable to be dismissed and is dismissed.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 1456
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.07.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 1000071 of 2013
along with
Writ A No. 1000077 of 2014

Mohd. Talaha ...Petitioner
Versus
Special Judge Ayodhya Prakaran/Addl.
D.J. Lko. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
G.S. Nigam, Abhisht Saran, Manish Jauhari

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G., Ankit Srivastava, Pankaj Khare

A. Tenancy Law - Bonafide requirement -
Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation
of Letting, Rent and Eviction), 1972 -
Sectiosn 21(1)(a) & 22 - It is unnecessary
to make an endeavour as to how else the
landlord could have adjusted himself. In
the matter of choice of accommodation
some discretion and latitude has to be
given to the landlord and tenant cannot
dictate that landlord shall satisfy his
need in the manner suggested by him.
Courts cannot impose their own wisdom
in advising the landlord the manner in
which he can satisfy his need without
disturbing the possession of the tenant.
(Para 10)

Neither the tenant or the Court could direct the
landlord. It is the choice of the landlord to
choose the place for business which is more
suitable for him. (Para 12)
7 All. Mohd. Talaha Vs. Special Judge Ayodhya Prakaran/Addl. D.J. Lko. & Ors.
1457
The need of the petitioner was ultimately found
bonafide by the Appellate Court. The Appellate
Court should have ordered for the release of the
whole accommodation to meet the bonafide
need of the landlord instead of only a part of it
to the extent of 700 square feet and secondly, it
is also clear that the petitioner had moved the
application for release on not getting the
desired amount of rent will not be relevant
factor though for the question of bonafide need
is concerned and on that ground it could not be
said that the need of the petitioner was artificial
in nature. (Para 15)

B. The finding recorded that the tenant
carries on functions of public convenience
therefore, the accommodation may not be
released in favour of the landlord since it
will cause the inconvenience to the public
has no relevance and it will not undo the
bonafide requirement of the landlord on the
basis of which he is entitled to get the tenanted
accommodation release in his favour. (Para 16)

WRIT - A No. - 1000071 of 2013, filed by
the landlord, allowed.
WRIT - A No. - 1000077 of 2014, filed by
the tenant, dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Surendra Singh Dhillon & ors.Vs Vimal Jindal,
2022 (4) ICC 842 (Para 8)

2. Mangalserry Vs Sukumar, judgment dated
26.07.2023, Bombay High Court, WP No. 715 of
2018 (Para 8)

3. Shiv Prasad Jaiswal Vs Ist A.D.J. Azamgarh,
2006 (1) ARC 602 (Para 10)

4. Rishi Kumar Govil Vs Maqsoodan & ors., 2007
(4) SCC 465 (Para 12)

Present two writ petitions are the same
and inter-connected, therefore, both the
writ petitions are decided together. The
WRIT - A No. - 1000071 of 2013 has been
filed by the landlord for quashing the
judgment and order dated 20.02.2013.
The WRIT - A No. - 1000077 of 2014 has
been filed by the tenant for setting aside
the impugned judgment and order dated
20.02.2013, passed by the Special Judge,
Ayodhya Prakran Additional District Judge
Lucknow partly allowing the Rent Appeal
No. 30 of 2010 and judgment and order
dated 05.04.2010, passed by Prescribed
Authority / First Additional District Judge,
Small Causes.

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

1. As the questions involved in the
present two writ petitions are the same and
inter-connected, therefore, both the writ
petitions are decided together.

2. The WRIT - A No. - 1000071 of
2013 has been filed by the landlord with
the following prayer:-

a) A writ direction or order in the
nature of Certiorari quashing the judgment
and order dated 20/02/2013 passed by
opposite party no. 1 contained in Annexure
No. 1 of the writ petition.

3. The WRIT - A No. - 1000077 of
2014 has been filed by the tenant with the
following prayer:-

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of certiorari thereby setting
aside the impugned judgment and order
dated 20.02.2013, passed by the Special
Judge,
Ayodhya
Prakran
Additional
District Judge Lucknow partly allowing the
Rent Appeal No. 30 of 2010 and judgment
and order dated 05.04.2010, passed by
Prescribed Authority / First Additional
District Judge, Small Causes, Court No. 18,
Lucknow relating to P.A. Case No. 19 of
2008, as contained in Annexure Nos. 1 and
2 respectively to the writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
in WRIT - A No. - 1000071 of 2013 i.e. the
landlord has submitted that the respondent
1458 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
no. 3 is in the tenancy of the ground floor
of the building of the petitioner situated at
Aminabad, Lucknow since 1941 on the rent
of Rs. 425 per month. The petitioner has
two
sons
and
to
establish
them
independently in the business, the shop
rented to the respondent no. 3 was required
hence an application under Section 21 (1)
(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction),
1972 (in short " U.P. Act No. 13 of
1972")was moved before the Prescribed
Authority and the Prescribed Authority
accepted the bonafide need of the petitioner
and granted an order in favour of the
petitioner
i.e.
landlord, directing
the
respondent no. 3 to vacate the premises.

5. It is further submitted that against
the order of the Prescribed Authority, the
respondent no. 3 preferred an appeal under
Section 22 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972
which was decided in favour of the
tenant/respondent no. 3 by placing reliance
that earlier petitioner had issued a notice on
02.06.2003 for enhancement of rent which
was not accepted by the respondent no. 3.
Again a request was made in 2006 to
enhance the rent @ Rs. 25 per square feet
and total area of tenancy is 2150/- square
feet. The said request of the petitioner was
turned down by the respondent no. 2 on
7.12.2007 and again reiterated for the
enhancement of rent from Rs. 425/- to Rs.
20,000/- per month, which was not
accepted by the petitioner on 10.12.2007.
After three months an application under
Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of
1972 was moved by the petitioner on
10.3.2008 showing the bonafide need i.e.
area is required for establishing his sons for
running their business independently.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submitted that the Appellate Court
had come to the conclusion that the said
application for release moved after three
months from the date of rejection of offer
of enhancement of rent by the tenant i.e.
respondent no. 3 would show that the need
was not bonafide, it was artificial but at the
same time in the last part of its judgment
had accepted the need of the petitioner
rejecting the submissions made by the
tenant i.e. respondent no. 3 that suggestion
made by the tenant that the applicant i.e. a
petitioner is man of sound financial
condition and is capable of finding out
appropriate commercial buildings/space for
his sons to run their business and in the
ground floor apart from the area under the
tenancy of the respondent no. 3 the other
shops are also available which was not
accepted by the Appellate Court by giving
a finding that the applicant is residing at the
first floor of the building along with his
family. The said building is situated in
commercial area hence ground floor is
more proper and convenient for running a
business for his sons and as per settled
proposition of law the appellant i.e. tenant
would not suggest the landlord to look for
the alternative commercial accommodation
nor the tenant can suggest for evicting the
another shop in the same building under the
tenancy of some other persons and
thereafter had come to conclusion for
running the business of his sons the area of
700 square feet is sufficient from the total
area of 2150 square feet, which is under the
tenancy of the respondent no. 3 and passed
an order of release in favour of the
petitioner, meaning-thereby the bonafide
need was accepted by the Appellate
Authority. Once it has been accepted then
there was no occasion to take a decision to
release only some part of the property
under the tenancy of the respondent no. 3
and interference in the order passed by the
Prescribed Authority is not at all required,
7 All. Mohd. Talaha Vs. Special Judge Ayodhya Prakaran/Addl. D.J. Lko. & Ors.
1459
hence the order passed is bad in the eyes of
law and liable to be quashed.

7. On the other hand Sri Ankit
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent no. 3/counsel for the petitioner
in WRIT - A No. - 1000077 of 2014/tenant
has submitted that when the petitioner
failed to get the rent enhanced as per their
desire within three months, he preferred the
application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the
U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 meaning-thereby
an application preferred by the petitioner is
not bonafide it was in vengeance for not
enhancing the rent at the rate of Rs. 25/-
per square feet. When they have not
achieved the enhanced rent as per their
desire and the finding given by the
Appellate Court in this regard does not
require for any interference. It is further
submitted that once the finding was given
by the Appellate Authority that the need
was not bonafide and thereafter passing of
the order of release of the 700 square feet
of the property from the area of the tenancy
of the respondent no. 3/petitioner/tenant is
bad in the eyes of law and liable to be
quashed as far as part of release of 700
square feet of the land from the tenancy of
the tenant out of total area of 2150 square
feet.

8. In reply learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that it is an
undisputed fact that after moving the
application of release under Section 21 (1)
(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 by the
petitioner the tenant/respondent/petitioner
had not made any effort to look out for an
alternative
accommodation.
He
also
submitted that demand of increase of rent is
wholly irrelevant to determine the bonafide
requirement of the premises by the
appellant and in support of his submission
learned counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance upon the judmgent of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Surendra Singh Dhillon and others Vs.
Vimal Jindal reported in 2022(4) ICC 842
and judgment dated 26.7.2023 of the
Bombay High Court in the case of
Mangalserry Vs. Sukumar decided in Writ
Petition No. 715 of 2018.

9. After hearing learned counsel for
the parties, going through the record of the
case and the judgments relied by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, the
position emerges out in the present case is
the case of the tenant/respondent/petitioner
in WRIT - A No. - 1000077 of 2014 for
denying the need of the petitioner/landlord
are:-

(i) Firstly, that when they failed
to receive the rent as per their desire, an
application
was
moved
showing
the
bonafide need which is in-fact artificial in
nature,

(ii) Secondly, the petitioner is a
financially sound person and he could
make
arrangement
for
alternative
commercial accommodation of his sons for
running their business,

(iii) Thirdly, the petitioner has
other shops in the same premises which is
also rented and can be opted for eviction.

(iv) Fourthly, the respondent no.
3/tenant is a post office, which is a public
utility service and shifting of the same is
inconvenient to the public at large.

10. As far as learned counsel for the
tenant/respondent no. 3/petitioner in WRIT
- A No. - 1000077 of 2014 regarding the
status and capability for looking for
alternative accommodation etc. there is a
specific finding in the impugned Appellate
Order rejecting the said submission on the
settled proposition of law that the tenant
1460 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cannot dictate the landlord to act in what
manner, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Shiv Prasad Jaiswal
Vs. Ist ADJ Azamgarh; 2006 (1) ARC 602
and the relevant para 10 of the said
judgment is quoted herein-below:-

"10. The Supreme Court in Sarla
Ahuja v. United India Insurance Company
Ltd... AIR 1999 SC 100., and S.N Kapoor v.
B.L. Khatri. 2002 46 ALR 209 SC., has held
that it is unnecessary to make an endeavour
as to how else the landlord could have
adjusted himself. It has also been held that
in the matter of choice of accommodation
some discretion and latitude has to be
given to the landlord and tenant cannot
dictate that landlord shall satisfy his need
in the manner suggested by him. In the
latter authority it has also been held that
Courts cannot impose their own wisdom in
advising the landlord the manner in which
he can satisfy his need without disturbing
the possession of the tenant."

11. By passing an order for release of
700 square feet from the tenancy of the
tenant means that the bonafide need was
accepted by the Appellate Court otherwise
release of the part of the tenanted
accommodation could not have been
passed.

12. The law is settled that neither the
tenant or the Court could direct the
landlord. It is the choice of the landlord to
choose the place for business which is more
suitable for him as per the law settled by
the Hon'ble Suprme Court in the the case of
Rishi Kumar Govil vs Maqsoodan And
Ors;2007 (4) SCC 465. The relevant para
19 is quoted herein-below:-

"In Raghavendra Kumar v. Firm
Prem Machiner & Co. AIR (2000) SC 534
it was held that it is the choice of the
landlord to choose the place for the
business which is most suitable for him. He
has complete freedom in the matter. In
Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava, AIR
(2001) SC 803 it was held that the need of
the landlord is to be seen on the date of
application for release. In Prativa Devi
(Smt.) v. T.V. Krishnan, [1996] 5 SCC 353
it was held 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. The High Court noted that
when the Prescribed Authority passed the
order son of the respondent-landlady was
20 years old and the shop was sought to be
released for the purpose of settling him in
business. More than 20 years have elapsed
and the son has become more than 40 years
of age and she has not been able to
establish him as she has still to get the
possession of the shop and the litigation of
the dispute is still subsisting. The licence
for repairing fire arms can only be
obtained when there is a vacant shop
available and in the absence of any vacant
shop, licence cannot be obtained by him.
Therefore, the High Court came to the
conclusion concurring with that of the
Prescribed
Authority
and
Appellate
Authority that the need of the landlady is
bona fide and genuine. Considering the
factual findings recorded by the Prescribed
Authority,
Appellate
Authority
and
analysed by the High Court, there is no
scope for any interference in this appeal
which is accordingly dismissed. However,
considering the period for which the
premises in question are in the occupation
of the appellant time is granted till 31st
December, 2007 to vacate the premises
subject to filing of an undertaking before
7 All. Mohd. Talaha Vs. Special Judge Ayodhya Prakaran/Addl. D.J. Lko. & Ors.
1461
the Prescribed Authority within a period of
2 weeks to deliver the vacant possession on
or before the stipulated date. There will be
no order as to costs.

13. As far as the submission that
when the petitioner has failed to get the
rent as per his desire, the release
application was moved thereafter deprived
the petitioner to move such application as
the said application is not bonafide but the
need is artificial, the said submission is also
against the law settled in the case of
Surendra Singh Dhillon and others
(Supra) Vs. Vimal Jindal relied by the
learned counsel for the petitioner and the
relevant para nos. 3 is quoted hereinbelow:-

"3. The The learned Counsel
appearing for the Appellants argued that
the Rent Controller and the Appellate
Authority have passed an order of eviction
finding
bonafice
requirement
of
the
landlord. The demand of increase of rent is
wholly irrelevant to determine the bonafide
requirement of the premises by the
Appellant.

14. In another Judgment of Hon'ble
Bombay High Court relied by the learned
counsel for the petitioner in the case of
Mangalserry Vs. Sukumar (Supra) and the
relevant para no. 13 is quoted hereinbelow:-

"13. As far as settlement is
concerned, it has come on record that the
petitioners have failed to act upon the
terms and conditions of the settlement.
Even
this
Court
repeatedly
granted
opportunity to the petitioners in that
regard, however, the petitioners failed to
avail such opportunity. In the said
backdrop, subsequently change of decision
by the landlords not to sell the property
does not amount to cessation of a need of
the landlords."

15. From the record the position is
clear that the need of the petitioner was
ultimately found bonafide by the Appellate
Court. The Appellate Court should have
ordered for the release of the whole
accommodation to meet the bonafide need
of the landlord instead of only a part of it to
the extent of 700 square feet and secondly,
it is also clear that the petitioner had moved
the application for release on not getting
the desired amount of rent will not be
relevant factor though for the question of
bonafide need is concerned and on that
ground it could not be said that the need of
the petitioner was artificial in nature.

16. As far as the finding recorded that
the tenant carries on functions of public
convenience therefore, the accommodation
may not be released in favour of the
landlord
since
it
will
cause
the
inconvenience to the public has no
relevance and it will not undo the bonafide
requirement of the landlord on the basis of
which he is entitled to get the tenanted
accommodation release in his favour.

17. In view of discussion made above
the challenge of judgment/order passed by
the Prescribed Authority by the tenant does
not require any interference.

18. In view of the facts discussion
made hereinabove the WRIT - A No. -
1000071 of 2013 preferred by the
landlord is hereby allowed and the
impugned order dated 20.02.2013 is
hereby quashed and the WRIT - A No. -
1000077of 2014 filed by the tenant is
dismissed.
----------
1462 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2024) 7 ILRA 1462
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.07.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 1000097 of 2008

Shyam Chandra & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
District Judge Sultanpur & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Satya Prakash, Ashish Verma, Kumar
Jaikrit, M.P. Yadav, Rajeiu Kr. Tripathi, Ram
Kushal Tiwari, Sanjiv Srivastava, Shrikant
Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Dinesh Kumar, Mohammad Aslam
Khan, Shrikant Mishra

A.
Tenancy
Law
-
Bonafide
requirement - U.P. Urban Buildings
(Regulation
of
Letting,
Rent
and
Eviction) Act, 1972 - Section 21(1)(a)
- Neither the tenant nor the court
could direct the landlord. It is the
choice of the landlord to choose the
place for business which is more
suitable for him. (Para 16)

Using the premises purchased during the
pendency of the case as a godown will not
give any right to the tenants to dictate the
landlord on which property they should use
as a godown. The godown is required
where the shop is running. The petitioners
just to avoid an adverse effect on their
business
as
under
compelling
circumstances i.e. long pendency of the
case, made an alternative arrangement.
(Para 16)

B. In order to prove bona-fide need, a
landlord does not require to establish dire
or compelling need for a premises in order
to establish his business and it is the
choice of the landlord which would be
paramount in such circumstances. (Para
19)

Subsequent
event/developments
are
not
affecting the ground taken in the release
application preferred by the petitioners as in the
release application for personal bonafide need,
the ground taken was that now the petitioner
no. 2 has become major and got married and
requires shop as through the same shop there is
ingress and outgress of the house and the
petitioners are short of space for keeping the
stock of the goods. During this long period of
litigation, such requirement has not changed.
The business is running in the same shop, the
entry of the house is from the same shop and
with the passage of time, the business would
have been increased and there is more
requirement of godown for keeping the stock.
The petitioner no. 1 is married having children
thus, the family has expanded, so none of the
circumstances have changed by subsequent
developments as discussed above hence, in the
present case, the rights of the parties stand
crystallized on the date of the institution of the
suit. (Para 21)

The appellate court has erred in deciding the appeal
by taking a new ground/plea i.e. the petitioners had
not disclosed the nature of the business which they
are running in the shop in how much space and
which type of goods they are storing for which the
godown is required. Such questions were never
raised nor were in dispute. In the facts &
circumstances as on the record, the appellate court
mislead itself in entering into such questions foreign
to the merits of the case. (Para 23)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Nidhi Vs Ram Kripal Sharma (dad through
Legal Representatives), (2017) Supreme Court
Cases 640 (Para 7)

2. Smt. Bibi Begum Vs Dr. Awadhesh Narain &
ors., 2008 SCC Online All 1069; (2009) 75 ALR
277 (Para 8)

3. Dharmendra Singh Sonkar Vs Additional
District and Sessions Judge, 2016 SCC Online All