# Ram Chandra And Another Tenants/ v. Bipin Kumar Agnihotri Landlord/

- **Citation:** (2019) 1 ILRA 959
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-07-24
- **Case number:** Writ A(Rent Control) No. 9936 of 2019
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-chandra-and-another-tenants-v-bipin-kumar-agnihotri-landlord-44510
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972:
Sections 21(1)(a) & (b), 34(1)(c), Civil
Procedure Code, 1908: Order 41 Rule 27,
Order 26 Rule 9. The power for issue of
Commission is discretionary.

B. Additional evidence -only if the
conditions laid down in Order 41 Rule 27,
CPC are found to exist - cannot be
permitted to be adduced to patch up the
weak points in the case.

Respondent's application for release was
allowed vide judgment dated 27.02.2018.
Affirmed vide order dated 16.04.2019 in
appeal. The tenants-petitioners' application for
issue of commission was rejected during the
pendency of appeal. The present petition,
challenging both the orders, was dismissed
and the High Court

Held:-Petitioners failed to justify the demand
for issue of commission. Filed the application
to delay the disposal of appeal. The power
960 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
conferred upon the Court for the issue of
Commission under S.34(1) (c) of U.P. Act No.
13 of 1972 read with Order 26 Rule 9 is
discretionary.
(Para 8 and 9)

C.
Additional
evidence
cannot
be
permitted at the Appellate stage in order
to enable other party to remove certain
lacunae present in that case. (Para 12)

Precedent followed: -
1.Avinash Chandra Tiwari Vs. ADJ, 2010 (2)
ARC 84 (Para 10)

2.Malyalam Plantations Ltd. Vs. State of
Kerala, (2010) 13 SCC 487 (Para 12)

3.Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin, (2010) 8
SCC 148 (Para 13)

4.K. Venkataramiah Vs. A. Seetharama Reddy
&Ors., AIR 1963 SC 1526 (Para 13)

## Text

1 All. Ram Chandra And Another Vs. Bipin Kumar Agnihotri
959
commission. Local inspection or issue a
commission by the Court cannot be claimed
as of right by any party. Such inspections are
made to appreciate the evidence already on
record and Court is not expected to visit the
site for collecting evidence."

17. The aforementioned legal
position has been considered in a
recent judgment of this Court in Hari
Kishore Vs. Smt. Subhasini Devi and
others4.

18. In view of the foregoing
discussion the legal position, as it
emerges, is that in a case where the
parties have closed their evidence any
application filed for appointment of a
commissioner at the stage of arguments
would not be permissible as it would
amount to permitting the party to fill up
lacunae in its evidence. The object of the
provision for issuance of commission
cannot be to assist a party to collect
evidence or to initiate a roving enquiry.

19. In the facts of the present case, the
proceedings arising out of the release
application filed by the respondent-landlord
being at an advanced stage before the
Prescribed Authority where evidence of the
parties had been closed and the arguments on
behalf of the landlord had also been concluded
and dates were being fixed for evidence of
defendant-tenant, the conclusion drawn by the
Prescribed Authority that the application for
issuance of commission under Section 34 (1)
(c) had been filed at the belated stage only
with a view to delay the proceedings cannot
be faulted with.

20. Counsel for the petitioner has
not been able to point out any material
error or illegality in the order impugned
which may warrant interference.

21. The petition is devoid of
merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.07.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.

Writ A(Rent Control) No. 9936 of 2019

Ram Chandra And Another
 ...Tenants/Petitioners
Versus
Bipin Kumar Agnihotri
 ...Landlord/Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ramendra Asthana.

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari, Sri Pramod
Kumar Srivastava.

A. U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of
Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972:
Sections 21(1)(a) & (b), 34(1)(c), Civil
Procedure Code, 1908: Order 41 Rule 27,
Order 26 Rule 9. The power for issue of
Commission is discretionary.

B. Additional evidence -only if the
conditions laid down in Order 41 Rule 27,
CPC are found to exist - cannot be
permitted to be adduced to patch up the
weak points in the case.

Respondent's application for release was
allowed vide judgment dated 27.02.2018.
Affirmed vide order dated 16.04.2019 in
appeal. The tenants-petitioners' application for
issue of commission was rejected during the
pendency of appeal. The present petition,
challenging both the orders, was dismissed
and the High Court

Held:-Petitioners failed to justify the demand
for issue of commission. Filed the application
to delay the disposal of appeal. The power
960 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
conferred upon the Court for the issue of
Commission under S.34(1) (c) of U.P. Act No.
13 of 1972 read with Order 26 Rule 9 is
discretionary.
(Para 8 and 9)

C.
Additional
evidence
cannot
be
permitted at the Appellate stage in order
to enable other party to remove certain
lacunae present in that case. (Para 12)

Precedent followed: -
1.Avinash Chandra Tiwari Vs. ADJ, 2010 (2)
ARC 84 (Para 10)

2.Malyalam Plantations Ltd. Vs. State of
Kerala, (2010) 13 SCC 487 (Para 12)

3.Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin, (2010) 8
SCC 148 (Para 13)

4.K. Venkataramiah Vs. A. Seetharama Reddy
&Ors., AIR 1963 SC 1526 (Para 13)

5. The Municipal Corporation of Greater
Bombay Vs. Lala Pancham &Ors., AIR 1965 SC
1008 (Para 13)

6. Soonda Ram &Anr. Vs. Rameshwarlal &Ors.,
(1975) 2 SCC 698 (Para 13)

7. Syed Abdul Khader (Para 13)

8. Haji Mohamed Ishaq (Para 13)

9. State of U.P. (Para 13)

10. S. Rajagopal(Para 13)

Precedent distinguished: -

1.New Meena Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. Lko
Thru Its President Vs. Addl. District Judge,
Court No. 2, Lucknow &Ors., 2016 (2) ARC
133
(Para 11)

2. Jaipal Singh Vs. Smt. Sudha Rani, 2018 (3)
ARC 800 (Para 11) (E-4)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ramendra Asthana,
learned counsel for the tenants/petitioners
and Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
landlordrespondents.

2. Briefly stated facts of the present
case are that undisputedly the respondent
is the owner and landlord of the disputed
building which is part of T.P. No.353,
Sadar Bazar, Shahjahanpur. This portion
was let out to the ancestor of the
petitioner probably in the year 1963. The
tenancy was succeeded by the petitioners
which is for a monthly rent of Rs.200/-.
The respondent-landlord is an Advocate
by
profession.
His
residence
is
undisputedly in a narrow lane where
clients find it difficult to approach him.
He wants to establish his chamber at the
suitable place. The disputed property is
situate on the main road. To establish his
chamber/office the respondent-landlord
filed an application dated 01.07.2011,
under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No.13
of 1972 for release of the disputed
accommodation.
Parties
led
their
evidences both oral and documentary. The
release application being P.A. Case No.2
of 2011 (Bipin Kumar Agnihotri Vs. Ram
Chandra and another) was allowed and
the case was decreed by judgment dated
27.02.2018, passed by Civil Judge (S.D.),
Shahjahanpur.
Aggrieved
with
this
judgment, the tenants-petitioners filed a
P.A. Civil Appeal No.19 of 2018 (Ram
Chandra and another Vs. Bipin Kumar
Agnihotri), which has been decided by the
impugned judgment dated 16.4.2019,
passed
by
the
District
Judge,
Shahjahanpur. During pendency of the
aforesaid appeal, the tenants-petitioners
moved an application 14 Ga dated
15.10.2018, under Order XXVI Rule 9
C.P.C. for issue of commission to find out
1 All. Ram Chandra And Another Vs. Bipin Kumar Agnihotri
961
the distance in meters between the
residential house of the respondentlandlord and the disputed house and the
length and width of the disputed house
and name of tenants. This application was
rejected by the appellate court by District
Judge, Shahjahanpur by order dated
6.12.2018, against which the tenantspetitioners filed Writ - A No. 2256 of
2019 (Ram Chandra and another Vs.
Bipin Kumar Agnihotri) which was
disposed of by order dated 13.02.2019,
observing as under:-

"Accordingly,
without
examining the validity of the impugned
order at this stage, the petition is disposed
of with liberty reserved in favour of the
petitioners to challenge the impugned
order alongwith the final order passed in
appeal."

3. Now, the tenants-petitioners has
filed the present writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the following relief:-

"(a) call for record of the case
and issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of certiorari quashing judgments and
orders dated 16.04.2019 (contained in
Annexure No.13 to the writ petition passed by
the learned District Judge, Shahjahanpur,
dismissing with costs P.A. Civil Appeal No.19
of 2018 (Ram Chandra and another Vs. Vipin
Kumar Agnihotri) and 27.02.2018 (contained
in Annexure No.7 to the writ petition passed
by the learned Prescribed Authority/Civil
Judge,
Senior
Division,
Shahjahanpur
allowing Release Application under Section
21 of the U.P. Act No.XIII/1972 registered as
P.A. Case No.02 of 2011 (Vipin Kumar
Agnihotri Vs. Ram Chandra and another)."

4. Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned
counsel for the tenants/petitioners submits
as under:-

(i) The provision of Order XLI
Rule 27 and Order XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C. have
not been followed by the court below while
rejecting the application for commission
(paper No.14 Ga) by order dated 06.12.2018.
The application for issue Commission could
have been decided only at the time of final
hearing of the appeal and not otherwise. In
support of his submissions, reliance is placed
on the judgment of New Meena Sahkari
Awas Samiti Ltd. Lko Thru Its President
Vs. Addl. District Judge, Court No.2,
Lucknow &Ors. 2016(2) ARC 133 (Para
34) and Jaipal Singh Vs. Smt. Sudha Rani
2018 (3) ARC 800 (para 11).

(ii) Release application does not
disclose
that
the
applicant
possess
sufficient finance for construction of the
disputed building which was alleged to be
in a dilapidated condition.

(iii) While recording the finding
of bonafide need the court below has
failed to consider the aspects as provided
under Section 21(1)(b) of U.P. Act No.13
of 1972 read with Rules 17 of the Rules.
The landlord-respondent has alleged in
his release application that the disputed
property is in a dilapidated condition.

5. Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
landlordrespondents
supports
the
impugned
judgment.

6. I have carefully considered the
submissions of learned counsels for the
parties.

7. The first submission of learned
counsel for the tenants-petitioners has no
merit. It is undisputed that the release
application was filed in the year 2008 and
it was allowed by the impugned judgment
dated 27.2.2018. Before the Prescribed
Authority both the parties have led
962 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
number
of
documentary
evidences
including large number of photographs to
demonstrate the location of the disputed
property and the building where the
respondent is residing. No application for
issue of commission was moved before
the Prescribed Authority. After about 8
years of the institution of the release
application and that too at the appellate
stage the tenants-petitioners moved an
application for issue of commission in
which even no cause has been shown for
issue of commission. The only reason
stated in the aforestated application dated
16.10.2018 is in paragraph 2, which is
reproduced below:-

^^2& ;g fd fo}ku voj U;k;ky;
ds le{k oknxzLr edku o oknh ds fuokl
edku okn fLFkfr okn :i ls crk;h x;h o
okn rglhy eas crk;h x;h fdUrq fo}ku voj
U;k;ky; ds le{k otfj;s deh'ku fLFkfr Li"V
uk gksus ds dkj.k lgh fu.kZ; ij tgka igqapk tk
ldrk gSA^^

8. From perusal of the application
for commission (paper No.14 Ga) it is clear
that
the
tenants-petitioners
has
even
completely failed to disclose any reason to
justify his demand for issue of commission.
The aforesaid application was rejected by the
appellate court by order dated 06.12.2018 in
which detailed reason has been recorded for
rejection. The appellate court has also
recorded a finding that in the release
application the boundaries of the disputed
house and the names of tenants are
mentioned. The appellate court also observed
that 25 photographs supported by an affidavit
were filed by the landlord-respondent before
the Prescribed Authority with respect to both
the houses to show its on spot situation. The
appellate court also observed that the tenantspetitioners has filed the application for issue
of commission only to delay the disposal of
appeal. Order XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C. provides
for issue of commission to make local
investigation if in any suit in which the Court
deems a local investigation to be requisite or
proper for the purpose of elucidating any
matter in dispute, or of ascertaining the
market-value of any property, or the amount
of any mesne profits or damages or annual
net profits, then the Court may issue a
commission to such person as it thinks fit
directing him to make such investigation and
to report thereon to the Court provided that,
where the State Government has made rules
as to the persons to whom such commission
shall be issued, the Court shall be bound by
such rules.

9. The legal position regarding issue
of commission has been well settled. The
power conferred upon the Court for issue
of Commission under Section 34(1) (c) of
U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 read with order
XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C. is discretionary. The
local inspection or Commission by Court
is made only in those cases where
evidence have been led by the parties, but
the Court is not able to arrive at a just
conclusion either way or where the Court
feels that there is some ambiguity in the
evidence which can be clarified by
making local inspection or commission.
Such inspections are made to appreciate
the evidence already on record and the
Court is not expected to visit the site for
collecting evidence.

10. In the case of Avinash Chandra
Tiwari Vs. ADJ 2010(2) ARC 84 the
Lucknow bench of this court referred to
several decisions on the question of issue
of commission and held as under:

"11. To go for local inspection
or issue of commission for the proper
disposal of the controversy pending is a
sole progrative of the Court to decide
1 All. Ram Chandra And Another Vs. Bipin Kumar Agnihotri
963
whether to move the same or not. Hence,
it is late in a day to quarrel that it is not
mandatory on the part of the Court to
issue commission. When an application is
moved for the said purpose. The local
inspection or commission by court is
made only in those cases where on the
evidence led by the parties, Court is not
able to arrive at a just conclusion either
way or where the court feels that there is
some ambiguity in the evidence which can
be clarified by making local inspection or
commission. Local inspection or issue a
commission by the court cannot be
claimed as of right by any party. Such
inspections are made to appreciate the
evidence already on record and Court is
not expected to visit the site for collecting
evidence. (See Randhir Singh Sheoran Vs.
6th Additional District Judge, 1997(2)
JCLR 860 and Radhey Shyam Vs. A.D.J.,
Court no. 13, Lucknow and others,
[2010(2) A.D.J., 758].

12. Further, in the present case
as stated herein above, the opposite party
no. 1 on the basis of the material facts on
record given a categorical finding that at
this stage, it is not necessary to issue
commission, accordingly, rejected the
application
for
issue
of
the
Advocate/Commissioner, moved by the
petitioner. Further the court below held
that if the application for issue of
commission is allowed the same will
linger the matter unnecessary, as appeal
is pending since the year 2006. The said
view taken by the opposite party no. 1 is
in accordance with law as laid down by
this Court in the case of Sonpal Vs. 4th
Additional District Judge, Aligarh and
others, 1992 2 ARC, 596.

13.
In
the
case
of
Smt.
Shamshun Nisha Vs. Ist Additional
District Judge, Lucknow and others 1992,
(1) ARC page 423, it is held as under :

"By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioner challenges the
order, dated 13.05.1991, passed by Ist
Additional
District
Judge,
Lucknow,
contained in Annexure No. 6 by which the
petitioner's request for local inspection
was rejected by the appellate Court. The
appellate Court pointed out that the
petitioner had been given sufficient
opportunity to rebut the evidence of the
expert. However, the fact is not disputed
that the appeal is still pending and in
appeal only an application for local
inspection of the site by the Advocate
Commissioner
has
been
rejected.
Therefore, in my opinion, the said order
cannot be challenged in the writ petition."

14. So far as, the judgment
which is relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the M/s
Harihar Sugandh (p) Ltd, Anandi Das
Kannauj through it's M.D. Vs. Add. Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Court no. 3,
Kanpur Nagar [2004(57) ALR 224], (435)
Special Duty Collector LA.(Supra) and
Radheshyam Rastogi (supra) are not
applicable in view of the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the instant case.

15. Further in the case of
Anandi Das Kannauj through it's M.D.
Vs. Add. Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Court no. 3, Kanpur Nagar [2004(57)
ALR 224], it was held that if an
application for issue a commission is
rejected then, the same can not be resjudicata for moving another application
for issue of the commission for collection
of evidence, and in the case of Okhla
Enclave Plot holder Welfare Association
Vs. Union of India and Others(2009 LAR
51(SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court after
hearing and examining issues involved in
the present case deemed fit to direct
appointment of Commissioner, however,
in the present case the court below on the
964 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
basis of the material evidence on record,
come to the conclusion that there was no
necessity for issue of the commission so
the petitioner cannot derive any benefit
form the above said judgments.

16. Accordingly, as it is a sole
domain
of
the
Court
to
issue
a
commission
or
not
and
the
local
inspection or commission can not be
claimed as a matter of right by a party, so
there is neither any illegality nor infirmity
in the order under challenge.

17. For the foregoing reason,
the present writ petition filed by the
petitioner lacks merit and is dismissed."

11. The judgement in the case of
New Meena Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd.
Lko Thru Its President (supra) relied by
learned counsel for the tenants-petitioners
is distinguishable on facts. In paragraph 7
of the aforesaid judgment as reported in
ARC it has been noted that it was a suit
for permanent injunction and the dispute
was as to whether the property in dispute
is existing over Khasra No.222 as claimed
by the petitioner or over Khasra Nos.221
and
223
as
claimed
by
the
respondent/defendant nos.2 & 3. There
was no dispute of the ownership of the
concerned parties with respect to the
aforesaid three Khasra plots. In that
situation the issue of commission was
found to be necessary. Such are not the
facts of the present case. The judgment in
case of Jaipal Singh (supra) is also
distinguishable on facts which is evident
from the fact noted in paragraph 7 of the
judgment. That was the case where the
application moved by the petitioner of
that petition was referable to Order XLI
Rule 27 C.P.C. Hear is the case where the
application has been moved by the
tenants-petitioners at the appellate stage
under Order XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C. and that
too without disclosing any relevant cause
to ask for issue of commission.

12.

In
the
case
Malyalam
Plantations Ltd. vs. State of Kerla,
(2010) 13 SCC 487, (Para-17), Hon'ble
Supreme Court considered the scope of
Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. and held as
under:-

"It is equally well-settled that
additional evidence cannot be permitted
to be adduced so as to fill in the lacunae
or to patch up the weak points in the
case. Adducing additional evidence is in
the interest of justice. Evidence relating to
subsequent happening or events which
are relevant for disposal of the appeal,
however, it is not open to any party, at
the stage of appeal, to make fresh
allegations and call upon the other side
to admit or deny the same. Any such
attempt is contrary to the requirements
of Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC. Additional
evidence cannot be permitted at the
Appellate stage in order to enable other
party to remove certain lacunae present
in that case."
 (Emphasis supplied by me)

13. In the case of Union Of India vs
Ibrahim Uddin, (2010) 8 SCC 148,
(Paras-36 to 41), Hon'ble Supreme Court
reiterated the principles of Order XLI
Rule 27, C.P.C. laid down by it in its
earlier decisions in the case of K.
Venkataramiah
v.
A.
Seetharama
Reddy &Ors., AIR 1963 SC 1526; The
Municipal Corporation of Greater
Bombay v. Lala Pancham &Ors., AIR
1965 SC 1008; Soonda Ram &Anr. v.
Rameshwaralal &Anr., (1975) 3 SCC
698: AIR 1975 SC 479; Syed Abdul
Khader v. Rami Reddy &Ors., (1979) 2
SCC 601 : AIR 1979 SC 553, Haji
1 All. Ram Chandra And Another Vs. Bipin Kumar Agnihotri
965
Mohammed
Ishaq
Wd.
S.
K.
Mohammed &Ors. v. Mohamed Iqbal
and Mohamed Ali and Co., AIR 1978
SC 798, State of U.P. v. Manbodhan
Lal Srivastava, AIR 1957 SC 912; S.
Rajagopal v. C.M. Armugam &Ors.,
AIR 1969 SC 101 and held as under:-

"36. The general principle is
that the Appellate Court should not
travel outside the record of the lower
court and cannot take any evidence in
appeal. However, as an exception, Order
XLI Rule 27 CPC enables the Appellate
Court to take additional evidence in
exceptional
circumstances.
The
Appellate Court may permit additional
evidence only and only if the conditions
laid down in this rule are found to exist.
The parties are not entitled, as of right, to
the admission of such evidence. Thus,
provision does not apply, when on the
basis of evidence on record, the Appellate
Court can pronounce a satisfactory
judgment. The matter is entirely within
the discretion of the court and is to be
used sparingly. Such a discretion is only a
judicial discretion circumscribed by the
limitation specified in the rule itself.

37.
The
Appellate
Court
should
not,
ordinarily
allow
new
evidence to be adduced in order to
enable a party to raise a new point in
appeal. Similarly, where a party on
whom the onus of proving a certain
point lies fails to discharge the onus, he
is not entitled to a fresh opportunity to
produce evidence, as the Court can, in
such a case, pronounce judgment
against him and does not require any
additional evidence to enable it to
pronounce judgment.

38. Under Order XLI , Rule 27
CPC, the appellate Court has the power to
allow a document to be produced and a
witness
to
be
examined.
But
the
requirement of the said Court must be
limited to those cases where it found it
necessary to obtain such evidence for
enabling it to pronounce judgment. This
provision does not entitle the appellate
Court to let in fresh evidence at the
appellate stage where even without
such
evidence
it
can
pronounce
judgment in a case. It does not entitle the
appellate Court to let in fresh evidence
only for the purpose of pronouncing
judgment in a particular way. In other
words, it is only for removing a lacuna in
the evidence that the appellate Court is
empowered to admit additional evidence.

39. It is not the business of the
Appellate
Court
to
supplement
the
evidence adduced by one party or the
other in the lower Court. Hence, in the
absence of satisfactory reasons for the
non- production of the evidence in the
trial court, additional evidence should
not be admitted in appeal as a party
guilty of remissness in the lower court
is not entitled to the indulgence of being
allowed to give further evidence under
this rule. So a party who had ample
opportunity
to
produce
certain
evidence in the lower court but failed to
do so or elected not to do so, cannot
have it admitted in appeal.

40. The inadvertence of the
party or his inability to understand the
legal issues involved or the wrong advice
of a pleader or the negligence of a
pleader or that the party did not realise
the importance of a document does not
constitute a "substantial cause" within
the meaning of this rule. The mere fact
that certain evidence is important, is not in
itself a sufficient ground for admitting that
evidence in appeal.

41. The words "for any other
substantial cause" must be read with
966 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the word "requires" in the beginning of
sentence, so that it is only where, for
any
other
substantial
cause,
the
Appellate Court requires additional
evidence, that this rule will apply, e.g.,
when evidence has been taken by the
lower Court so imperfectly that the
Appellate
Court
cannot
pass
a
satisfactory judgment."
 (Emphasis supplied by me)

14. Thus, the first submission of
learned counsel for the tenants-petitioners
with respect to the issue of commission
deserves to be rejected and is hereby
rejected. The order dated 06.12.2018,
passed by the appellate court rejecting the
application 14 Ga for issue of commission
does not suffer from any error of law or
facts.

15. The 2nd and 3rd submission of
learned counsel for the tenants-petitioners
has also no merits. Reasons are that the
release application was filed by the
landlord-respondent
under
Section
21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 on the
ground
of
his
bonafide
need.
Undisputedly, the landlord-respondent is
an Advocate by profession and his
residence is in a narrow lane and away
from main road. The disputed property is
situated on the main road. He wants to
establish his office at a suitable place for
the purposes of his legal profession. He
established his bonafide need. Both the
courts below have recorded concurrent
finding of fact based on consideration of
relevant evidences on record that the
landlord-respondent is in bonafide need of
the disputed property and the comparative
hardship is in his favour. These findings
of fact can not be interfered with writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
constitution of India. No perversity in the
findings of fact recorded in the impugned
judgment could be pointed out by learned
counsel for the tenants-petitioners. Even
no argument has been raised before me in
this regard.

16. For all the reasons aforestated, I
do not find any merit in this petition.
Consequently, the writ petition fails and is
hereby dismissed with costs.

17. After the judgment was dictated
in open court, Sri Ramendra Asthana,
learned counsel for the tenants/petitioners
states on instructions that the tenantspetitioners
undertake
to
vacate
the
disputed house and handover its vacant
and peaceful possession to the landlordrespondent on or before 15.10.2019. He
further states on instruction that the
tenants-petitioners shall deposit the entire
decretal amount, if any, and an additional
sum of Rs.10,000/- and shall also submit
an undertaking with regard to the vacating
and handing over possession to the
disputed property to the respondentlandlord on or before 15.10.2019, within
three weeks before the court below and in
that event the tenants-petitioners may not
be evicted till 15.10.2019.

18. Sri Pramod Kumar Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
landlordrespondent accepts the statement made on
behalf of tenants-petitioners but submits
that in the event the conditions are not
satisfied within the stipulated period then
the protection may not be extended to
petitioner and in the event the conditions
are complied with but vacant possession
of the disputed property is not handed
over by the tenant-petitioner to the
landlord-respondent
on
or
before
15.10.2019 then in that event the tenantspetitioners may be directed to pay sum of
1 All. Surendra Singh Vs. Additional District Judge Court No. 11, Muzaffarnagar And Ors. 967
Rs.1000/- per day for each day of default
in vacating and handing over of vacant
and peaceful possession to the landlordrespondent.

19. Considering the statement made by
learned counsels for the parties as noted above,
it is provided that in the event the tenantspetitioners submit an undertaking to the
aforesaid effect before the court below within
three weeks from today and also deposit the
entire decretal amount and an additional sum of
Rs.10000/- within the same period then in that
event the tenants-petitioners shall not be evicted
from the disputed property till 15.10.2019. In
the event the conditions are not satisfied then
the protection as given above to the tenantspetitioners shall not continue. In the event the
conditions of the aforesaid undertaking are
complied with but tenants-petitioners do not
vacate and hand over vacant and peaceful
possession of the disputed property to the
landlord-respondent on or before 15.10.2019
then without prejudice to other consequences
which may follow, the tenants-petitioners shall
also pay a sum of Rs.1000/- per day for each
day of default in not vacating and not handing
over the vacant and peaceful possession to the
landlord-respondent after 15.10.2019.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.07.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.

Writ A(Rent Control) No. 10232 of 2019

Surendra Singh ...Defendant-Petitioner.
Versus
Additional
District
Judge
CourtNo.11,Muzaffarnagar And Ors.
 ...Plaintiffs-Respondents.

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Nipun Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Sumit Daga

A. U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation
of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act,
1972: Section 21(1)(a)
Landlord is the best judge of his
need - has a right to expand his
business - Court cannot interfere in
concurrent findings of fact regarding
bonafide
need
established
before
authorities

Appeal
against
order
of
eviction
was
dismissed by the impugned order dated
17.04.2019.
Dismissing
the
petitioner
tenant's present petition, the High Court.
Held:-
The
financial resources of
the
landlord-respondents
to
construct
the
commercial complex could not be disputed
by the tenant- petitioner.
(Para 10)

Precedent followed: -
1.Smt. Shanti Devi and another Vs. (Para 12)

2. S. Venugopal Vs. A Karruppusami and
another(Para 13)

3.
R.V.E.
Venkatachala
Gounder
Vs.
Venkatesha Gupta and Others, (Para 16)

4. Ranjeet Singh Vs. Ravi Prakash, (Para 17)

5. Mohd. Ayub and another Vs. Mukesh
Chand, (Para 18)

6. Nidhi Vs. Ram Kripal Sharma (Dead)
through legal representatives, (Para 19)

7. Vijay Kumar Gupta and another Vs.(Para
20)

8. Smt. Shamim Begum and others (Para 21)

9. Praveen Kumar Jain Vs. Kamal Gupta (Para 22)

10. Manish Mehra Vs. Ram Lal Gupta and
another, (Para 23)