# Natthu Ram v. VII Additional District Judge, Varanasi and others

- **Citation:** (2005) 2 ILRA 622
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-07-04
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14893 of 1989
- **Bench:** S.U. Khan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/natthu-ram-v-vii-additional-district-judge-varanasi-and-others-40497
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Sri Shashi Nandan
S.C.

U.P.
Urban
Building
(Regulation
of
letting Rent and Eviction) Act 1972Section 21-Release application on the
ground of bonafide need of land lordproperty in dispute of 3 shops on
monthly rent of Rs.20/- during pendency
of writ petition-one shop just adjust to
the land lord shop vacated-after getting
possession-the
land
lord
demolished
adjoining wall and converted the two
shops into one-held-need of land lords
stand satisfied-but considering law laid
down in Khursheeda's case the rent
enhanced from Rs.20/- to 500/- per
month.

Held: Para 1, 3 and 4

After filing of writ petition Sahdeo
entered
into
compromise
with
the
landlady and vacated the shop in his
possession. The shop vacated by Sahdeo
in the year 1990 was adjacent to the
shop in possession of the petitioner
landlord. After getting possession of the
said
shop,
landlord
demolished
the
adjoining wall and converted the two
shops to one big shop. This fact is not
denied by the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
2 All] Natthu Ram V. VII Additional District Judge, Varanasi and others 623
Accordingly I am of the opinion that due
to availability of the shop vacated by
Sahdeo during pendency of writ petition
the need of the landlord stands satisfied
to a great extent.

Accordingly writ petition is dismissed.

I have held in Khursheda versus A.D.J.
2004 (2) ARC 64 and H.M. Kichlu versus
A.D.J. 2004 (2) ARC 652 that while
granting relief against eviction to the
tenant in respect of building covered by
Rent Control Act or maintaining the said
relief already granted by the court
below, Writ Court is empowered to
enhance the rent to a reasonable extent.
The rent of Rs.20/- per month for a shop
in Varanasi is highly inadequate, virtually
it is no rent.
Case law discussed:
2002 (2) ARC-298
AIR 2001 SC-2655
2004 (2) ARC-64
2004 (2) ARC-652

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
622
2400; and Debotosh Pal Choudhury Vs.
Punjab National Bank & Ors., (2002) 8
SCC 68).

17. Thus, in view of the above, the
legal position can be summerised that the
defendant has a right to raise all
objections on the valuation and deficiency
of the court fees. The matter is to be
adjudicated upon and decided by the
Court under Section 12 of the Act 1870
and the decision so taken by the trial
Court shall be final. The defendant cannot
raise the grievance against the said
decision unless the valuation suggested by
him affects the jurisdiction of the Court.
However, the appellate or revisional
Court always can test the issue suo motu
and make the deficiency good as the
purpose of the Act is not only fixing the
pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court but
also creating revenue for the State.

18. In view of the above, we dispose
of this writ petition requesting the learned
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur
Nagar to decide the said application for
recall filed by the defendant-respondents
finally in the light of the law laid down
above as early as possible and to expedite
the trial of the Suit giving strict adherence
to the provisions of Order XVII Rule 1,
C.P.C. and conclude the same as early as
possible.
 Petition disposed of.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.07.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.U. KHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14893 of 1989

Natthu Ram

...Petitioner
Versus
VII Additional District Judge, Varanasi
and others

 ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.C. Tripathi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Sri Shashi Nandan
S.C.

U.P.
Urban
Building
(Regulation
of
letting Rent and Eviction) Act 1972Section 21-Release application on the
ground of bonafide need of land lordproperty in dispute of 3 shops on
monthly rent of Rs.20/- during pendency
of writ petition-one shop just adjust to
the land lord shop vacated-after getting
possession-the
land
lord
demolished
adjoining wall and converted the two
shops into one-held-need of land lords
stand satisfied-but considering law laid
down in Khursheeda's case the rent
enhanced from Rs.20/- to 500/- per
month.

Held: Para 1, 3 and 4

After filing of writ petition Sahdeo
entered
into
compromise
with
the
landlady and vacated the shop in his
possession. The shop vacated by Sahdeo
in the year 1990 was adjacent to the
shop in possession of the petitioner
landlord. After getting possession of the
said
shop,
landlord
demolished
the
adjoining wall and converted the two
shops to one big shop. This fact is not
denied by the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
2 All] Natthu Ram V. VII Additional District Judge, Varanasi and others 623
Accordingly I am of the opinion that due
to availability of the shop vacated by
Sahdeo during pendency of writ petition
the need of the landlord stands satisfied
to a great extent.

Accordingly writ petition is dismissed.

I have held in Khursheda versus A.D.J.
2004 (2) ARC 64 and H.M. Kichlu versus
A.D.J. 2004 (2) ARC 652 that while
granting relief against eviction to the
tenant in respect of building covered by
Rent Control Act or maintaining the said
relief already granted by the court
below, Writ Court is empowered to
enhance the rent to a reasonable extent.
The rent of Rs.20/- per month for a shop
in Varanasi is highly inadequate, virtually
it is no rent.
Case law discussed:
2002 (2) ARC-298
AIR 2001 SC-2655
2004 (2) ARC-64
2004 (2) ARC-652

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.)

1. This writ petition arises out of
release proceedings initiated by original
landlady
Smt.
Kundru
Devi
since
deceased and survived by the petitioner
against tenant respondent No. 3 Gopal on
the ground of bonafide need of her son
under Section 21 of U.P. Rent Regulation
Act (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972). Property
in dispute is a shop rent of which is
Rs.20/- per month. Landlady had three
shops in a row. Western shop was being
used by her son who is now petitioner,
eastern shop is in tenancy occupation of
respondent No.3 and the middle shop was
also in possession of another tenant
Sahdeo. All the three shops are of 5 feet 3
inch by 8 feet 10 inch. Landlady filed two
release applications against both the
tenants. The release application against
respondent No. 3 was registered as P.A.
case No. 170 of 1983 and release
application against the other tenant
Sahdeo was registered as P.A. case No.
169 of 1983. Prescribed authority/II
Additional Civil Judge, Varanasi allowed
both the release applications through
judgment and order dated 4.3.1986
against which two appeals were filed.
Appeal
of
respondent
No.
3
was
registered as R.C. Appeal No.98 of 1986
and appeal of Sahdeo as R.C. Appeal
No.97 of 86. VII Additional District
Judge, Varanasi allowed both the appeals
on 12.5.1989. Landlord has filed this writ
petition
against
judgment
of
lower
appellate court passed in appeal of Gopal
respondent No.3. Another writ petition
was also filed by the petitioner against the
judgment of the lower appellate court
passed in the appeal of Sahdeo being writ
petition No. 14895 of 1989 (dismissed in
default on 5.5.2005). After filing of writ
petition Sahdeo entered into compromise
with the landlady and vacated the shop in
his possession. The shop vacated by
Sahdeo in the year 1990 was adjacent to
the shop in possession of the petitioner
landlord. After getting possession of the
said shop, landlord demolished the
adjoining wall and converted the two
shops to one big shop. This fact is not
denied by the learned counsel for the
petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the tenant
respondent has vehemently argued that
the need of the landlord if any, stands
satisfied as he has obtained possession of
one shop which was in tenancy of Sahdeo.
Learned counsel for landlord petitioner
has argued that the landlord requires the
shop in dispute also to run his business
properly. In the release application it was
stated that landlady's son i.e. present
petitioner in order to increase his business
of selling food grains requires the other
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
624
two shops. Even if both the shops had
been in occupation of one and the same
tenant, the court would have been obliged
to consider as to whether release of one
shop would satisfy the need of the
landlord or not (vide R.C. Kesarvani Vs.
Dwarika Prasad, 2002 (2) ARC 298
(S.C.)). In the instant case two shops were
in tenancy occupation of two different
tenants. One tenant has already vacated.
In my opinion therefore the need stands
satisfied
to
a
great
extent.
Under
somewhat
similar
circumstances,
Supreme Court in Deena Nath Versus
Pooran Lal, AIR 2001 SC 2655 held that
if landlord had one room already in
possession and another room became
available to him during pendency of the
proceedings then need stood satisfied.

3. Accordingly I am of the opinion
that due to availability of the shop vacated
by Sahdeo during pendency of writ
petition the need of the landlord stands
satisfied to a great extent.

Accordingly
writ
petition
is
dismissed.

4. I have held in Khursheda versus
A.D.J. 2004 (2) ARC 64 and H.M.
Kichlu versus A.D.J. 2004 (2) ARC 652
that while granting relief against eviction
to the tenant in respect of building
covered
by
Rent
Control
Act
or
maintaining the said relief already granted
by the court below, Writ Court is
empowered to enhance the rent to a
reasonable extent. The rent of Rs.20/- per
month for a shop in Varanasi is highly
inadequate, virtually it is no rent.

5. Accordingly it is directed that
with effect from July 2005 onwards
respondent No.3 Gopal shall pay rent to
the landlord petitioner at the rate of
Rs.500/- per month. Petition Dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.07.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.U. KHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2036 of 1983

Smt. Janki Bai

...Petitioner
Versus
District Judge, Jhansi and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Prakash Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

U.P.
Urban
Building
(Regulation
of
letting on Rent and Eviction Act 1972Section-21
(1-A)-Release
Applicationland already in possession of small
portion of tenanted accommodation-her
husband
in
governement
service
occupying
the
house
provided
by
employer-on the date of filing the
release application-was to retire after
four months-approch of Lower Appellate
Court
not
only
astonishment
and
shocking
but
against
well
settled
principle
of
law-accommodation
provided by employer-the status of
employee-become
as
tenant
such
possession can not be considered as
alternative accommodation.

Held: Para 3 and 4

The appellate court did not give any
weight to the fact that after about four
months of the filing of the release
application landlady's husband was to
retire and in fact retired. Even if need is
considered on the date of filing of the
release
application
there
was
no
occasion to deny the release on the