# Prahlad Kumar Sahu v. Shiv Prasad & Ors

- **Citation:** (2013) 3 ILRA 1639
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-12-09
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.19937 of 2009
- **Bench:** Ran Vijai Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prahlad-kumar-sahu-v-shiv-prasad-ors-42853
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Sri Prakash Gupta, Sri K.K. Tiwari

U.P. Urban Buildings(Regulation of Letting
Rent
&
Eviction)
Act-1972-Section
21(i)(a)- Bonafide need of of land lordPrescribed authority found the need of
land lord to settled his -unemployed sonbonafide no effort made for alternate
accommodation by tenant-reversed by
Appellate Court on pertext need of the son
of landlord can not be considered-as well
as son is playing three wheals can not be
said unemployed held-order by Appellate
Court not sustainable in eye of law.

Held: Para-11
Here in this case, the prescribed authority
has held that as during the pendency of the
release application, the tenant has not
made an effort to search out any alternative
accommodation, therefore the comparative
hardship of the landlord would be greater.
The appellate authority has not addressed
1640 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
itself on the point for the reason that the
need of the landlord was not found to be
pressing and bonafide.

Case Law discussed:
2003(1) ARC 256; AIR 2003 SC 532; 2010(78)
ALR 748; 2006(2) ARC 78; 2006(2) AWC 1542;
2007(1) ARC 512.

## Text

3 All] Prahlad Kumar Sahu Vs. Shiv Prasad & Ors.
1639
that vehicles are to be changed after 5
years, having been set-aside, the period of
5 years in the model condition in the
permits of the petitioners shall stand
substituted by the period of 7 years which
was prevalent prior to 23/2/2010.

3. The model condition in the
petitioners
vehicles
(which
are
three
wheelers) shall be read to the effect that the
petitioners have to change their vehicles after
7 years, failing which their permits shall be
treated to be automatically cancelled.

4.That the above directions shall
continue till the STA takes any other
decision fixing any other age of vehicles
(three wheelers) in accordance with law.

The prayer of the petitioners that a
direction be issued to the respondent no.2,
Regional Transport Officer, Meerut to
permit the petitioners to ply their three
wheelers up to the age of 20 years, cannot
be granted and is refused."

29. This Court once again in the case
of Surise Public School Through Caretaker
and others Vs. State of U.P. and others
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9950 2013)
decided on 22.02.2013 wherein similar
prayer had been made for issuing direction
in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to issue permit and fitness
certificate to the petitioners' vehicles fixing
the age of vehicles upto 20 years old model
has not been accepted and writ petition in
question has been dismissed.

30. Here in the present case also as far
as this Court is concerned it will not at all
come to the rescue or reprieve of the
petitioner by directing the Respondents not
to fix age of vehicle at the point of time of
issuance of permit/continuance of permit, as
condition of permit, as challenge made is
unsustainable for the reasons already
mentioned above, the same being in the
realm of policy decision for securing safety
of passenger and control pollution.

31. In view of this there is no scope
of interference and accordingly this bunch
of writ petition are dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.12.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.19937 of 2009

Prahlad Kumar Sahu... Petitioner
Versus
Shiv Prasad & Ors.... Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sanjay Agarwal,Sri Ashish Agarwal
Sri Prakash Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Prakash Gupta, Sri K.K. Tiwari

U.P. Urban Buildings(Regulation of Letting
Rent
&
Eviction)
Act-1972-Section
21(i)(a)- Bonafide need of of land lordPrescribed authority found the need of
land lord to settled his -unemployed sonbonafide no effort made for alternate
accommodation by tenant-reversed by
Appellate Court on pertext need of the son
of landlord can not be considered-as well
as son is playing three wheals can not be
said unemployed held-order by Appellate
Court not sustainable in eye of law.

Held: Para-11
Here in this case, the prescribed authority
has held that as during the pendency of the
release application, the tenant has not
made an effort to search out any alternative
accommodation, therefore the comparative
hardship of the landlord would be greater.
The appellate authority has not addressed
1640 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
itself on the point for the reason that the
need of the landlord was not found to be
pressing and bonafide.

Case Law discussed:
2003(1) ARC 256; AIR 2003 SC 532; 2010(78)
ALR 748; 2006(2) ARC 78; 2006(2) AWC 1542;
2007(1) ARC 512.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashish Gupta, learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents. Counter and
rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged
and the writ petition is taken up for final
disposal with the consent of learned
counsel for the parties.

2. By means of this writ petition, the
petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of
certiorari quashing the judgments and order
dated 18.3.2009 passed by Additional
District Judge, Court No. 1, Jhansi in Rent
Control Appeal No. 03 of 2006 (Shiv
Prasad and another Vs. Prahlad Kumar
Sahu and others) by which appeal filed by
respondents no. 1 and 2 has been allowed
and order dated 6.2.2006 passed by the
learned Prescribed Authority/Judge Small
Causes Court in P.A.Case No. 51 of 2004
has been set aside.

3. The facts giving rise to this case are
that the present petitioner (landlord) has
filed an application under Section 21 (1) (a)
of U.P.Urban Buildings (Regulation of
Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972
seeking release of the shop in question for
the bonafide need of his younger son Sri
Pankaj Sahu on the ground that he is major
and unemployed and wants to start his
independent
business.
The
release
application
was
contested
by
the
respondents on the ground that Sri Pankaj
Sahu is having income by plying three
seaters and the ladies of his house are also
engaged in manufacturing of papper and are
earning huge money from it, therefore the
need is not bonafide and the application for
release deserves to be rejected.

4. In support of the release
applicaiton, Sri Pankaj Sahu has filed an
affidavit no.18Ka and other affidavits
19Ka, 20Ka and 21 ka.

5. Sri Shiv Prasad (the respondent
no. 1) has also filed an affidavit 33ka in
rebuttal stating therein that his father was
original tenant in the shop in dispute and
after his death, the respondents are
running tailoring shop. It has also been
stated that the needs set up by landlord is
not genuine as there is sufficient income
of the family. The prescribed authority
has framed three issues:-

(i) Whether there is a relation-ship of
tenant and landlord in between the
applicant and the opposite party.

(ii) Whether the need of the landlord
is bonafide and genuine.

(iii) In case, the release application is
allowed whose hardship shall be greater.

6. The prescribed authority has held
that the need of the landlord is bonafide as
his one major son, Sri Pankaj Sahu is
jobless and is entitled to establish his
independent business. So far as the
comparative hardship is concerned, the
prescribed authority has recorded that
since during the pendency of release
application, no effort has been made by
the tenant to search out alternative
accommodation for shifting his business,
therefore the comparative hardship of the
landlord would be greater than the tenant.
After recording these findings, the learned
prescribed authority has allowed the
3 All] Prahlad Kumar Sahu Vs. Shiv Prasad & Ors.
1641
release application vide judgment and
order dated 6.2.2006 with the direction to
the landlord to pay the rent of two years
to the tenant within 15 days, with the
further direction to the tenant to vacate
the accommodation in dispute within a
period of one month and in the event of
failure of handing over the possession, the
landlord was made entitled to take
possession through court.

7. Aggrieved by the order of the
prescribed
authority,
the
respondent
tenant has filed appeal, which has been
allowed by the appellate court holding
that the need of the son of the landlord is
not bonafide as it cannot be believed that
a man of thirty years can be unemployed.
Further there is sufficient income of
family, which is being earned through
plying of three seaters and selling of
papper by the house ladies.

8. After going through the impugned
judgment
passed
by
the
appellate
authority, I find that the appellate
authority has erred in setting aside the
finding recorded by the learned prescribed
authority regarding bonafide need of the
landlord taking very hypothetical view
without there being any concrete material
to observe that a man of thirty years
cannot be believed to be unemployed,
whereas the specific case of the landlord
was that his son is major and is
unemployed and wants to start his
independent business. The appellate court
has also erred in taking into account the
meagre income coming from preparation
and selling of papper by the house ladies
as well as the income of the son of the
landlord. The plying of three seaters by
the son cannot be said to be an
independent business of the son of the
landlord. It is not the object of the act that
if the release of accommodation is sought
on the ground of establishing the major
son, the son should sit idle. The bonafide
need has to be tested in totality of
circumstances and not by taking into
consideration
such
type
of
pity
involvement in earning something for
livelihood. I am of the view that the major
son of the landlord is entitled to establish
his healthier independent business.

9. It is settled that in case, landlord's
son is major and is unemployed and wants
to start an independent business, his need
has to be treated to be bonafide.
Reference may be given to the judgment
of the Apex Court in Smt. Sushila Vs. 2nd
Additional District Judge, Banda and
others
2003
(1)
ARC
256,
and
Akhileshwar Kumar and others Vs.
Mustaqim AIR 2003 SC 532 as well as of
this Court in Devi Saran Vs. Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 6,
Bulandshahr and others (Writ Petition No.
36815 of 2001 decided on 26.9.2008) and
Waqar Alam Vs. Additional District
Judge & another 2010 (78) ALR 748.

10. So far as comparative hardship is
concerned it is settled that if after filing of the
release application, no effort has been made
for
searching
out
an
alternative
accommodation by the tenant, the question of
hardship does not arise in favour of the tenant.
Reference may be given in B.C.Bhutada Vs.
G.R.Mundada AIR 2003 SC 2713 :2005 (2)
ARC 899 and Ganga Devi Vs. District Judge
Nainital 2008 (7) ADJ 501. This Court has
reiterated the same view in Sri Krishna Bajpai
Vs.
Ist
Additional
District
Judge
(Shahjahanpur and others) 2006 (2) ARC 78,
Hiralal (D) Through L.R.Vs. Vth A.D.J.and
others 2006 (2) AWC 1542 and Kulwant
Singh (Sardar) Vs. Vith A.D.J. Saharanpur
and others (2007 (1) ARC 512.
1642 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. Here in this case, the prescribed
authority has held that as during the
pendency of the release application, the
tenant has not made an effort to search out
any alternative accommodation, therefore the
comparative hardship of the landlord would
be greater. The appellate authority has not
addressed itself on the point for the reason
that the need of the landlord was not found to
be pressing and bonafide.

12. After going through the entire
judgment of the appellate authority and
record, I find that the appellate authority has
erred in holding that the need of the landlord
is not bonafide. Therefore, the impugned
judgment passed by the appellate authority
cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The
writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The
impugned
judgment
and
order
dated
18.3.2009, passed by Additional District
Judge, Court No. 1, Jhansi, is hereby
quashed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.12.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 22554 of
2012

Rakesh Kumar & Ors.... Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors.... Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Mahendra KUmar Sharma, Sri Pavan
Kishore

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Cr.P.C.-Section 482-Quashing of criminal
proceeding-offence under Section 498-A,
323, 504, 506 I.P.C.-readwith 3/4 D.P. Actbefore
District
Mediation
Center-both
decided
to
live
together-considering
matrimonial dispute-keeping in view of law
laid down by Apex Court in B.S. Joshi, Nikhil
Merchant, Manoj Sharma and Gian Singh
cases-all criminal proceeding quashed.

Held: Para-8 & 9
8. In the aforesaid circumstances of the
case at hand the court itself had referred
the matter to the mediation which has
fructified into positive result. A broken
house has come back to life again, it
shall be not only be abuse of the court's
process but shall also be a travesty of
justice, if even in such circumstances,
where husband and wife started living
together, this court cold shoulders them
and forces them once again to join the
issue and lock horns with each other.

9. The existence of Mediation Centre has
found its full vindication and the parties
have amicably settled the controversy
tormenting their lives so far. If the
proceedings of lower court are still
allowed to go on, it is apparent that the
same shall be a sheer abuse of the
court's process. The dockets of the
pending cases are already bursting on
their seams and the lower Courts must
be allowed to engage themselves in
more fruitful judicial exercise and not be
saddled with matters like the one at
hand whose fate is already sealed.

Case Law discussed:
(2003)4 SCC 675; (2008) 9 SCC 677; (2008) 16
SCC 1; (2012) 10 SCC 303; 2013(83) ACC 2781.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Karuna Nand
Bajpayee, J.)

1. This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
has been filed by applicants Rakesh
Kumar, Rajesh Kumar, Smt. Rinki, Ram
Adhar and Smt. Shanti Devi with the
prayer to quash the entire proceedings of
Case No.5094 of 2009 (State Vs. Rakesh
Kumar and others) u/s 498A, 323, 504,
506 I.P.C. & 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act,