# Singh v. Ravi Prakash, I do not find this

- **Citation:** (2005) 1 ILRA 230
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-02-04
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45619 of 2004
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/singh-v-ravi-prakash-i-do-not-find-this-40431
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Sri Neeraj Agarwal

U.P.
Urban
Building
(Regulation
of
Letting and Rent Control) Act 1972-S.
21(1)(a)-Release application by land
lord-residential accommodation on the
ground of bonafied need as three sons
have became major-tenant's son residing
in the same-locality-No effort to find out
any
alternative
accommodation-
concurrent
finding
of
facts-No
interference.

Held: Para 5

Learned counsel for the petitioner could
not demonstrate that the findings arrived
at by the prescribed authority and
affirmed by the appellate authority suffer
from any error, much less manifest error
of law or that the findings arrived at by
the prescribed authority and affirmed by
the appellate authority are perverse. In
this view of the matter and in view of the
law laid down by the apex Court reported
in (2003) 6 S.C.C., page 675 Surya Dev
Rai Vs Ram Chander Rai and others; and
2004 (2) A.W.C., page 1721 (SC) Ranjet
Singh Vs. Ravi Prakash, I do not find this
to be a fit case for interference by this
Court in exercise of power under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, thus, in
my opinion this writ petition has no force
and is accordingly dismissed.
Case law discussed:
1984 ARC 113
2003 (6) SCC-675
2004 (2) AWC 1729

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
[2005
 230
averments made in para 27 of the written
statement.
In
this
background,
the
argument cannot be lapped up and does
not commend to me for acceptance and I
am of the firm view that order dismissing
the initial amendment application as not
pressed on account of some technical flaw
would not have the consequence of
operating as resjudicata. In the above
perspective, the order impugned herein
does not suffer from any error, illegality
or irregularity and as such is not liable to
be quashed. In the perspective of the facts
of the case, I am prompted to observe that
the defendant will have ample opportunity
to rebut the plea by filing written
statement qua the amendment introduced
in the plaint and the entire plea and
counter plea would be reckoned with by
the trial court in the course of trial of the
suit.

5. As a result of foregoing
discussion, the revision application is
devoid of merit and is accordingly
dismissed in limine.
Revision dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.02.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45619 of 2004

Vinod Kumar

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Nathu Ram

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri H.M. Srivastava
Sri Neeraj Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Neeraj Agarwal

U.P.
Urban
Building
(Regulation
of
Letting and Rent Control) Act 1972-S.
21(1)(a)-Release application by land
lord-residential accommodation on the
ground of bonafied need as three sons
have became major-tenant's son residing
in the same-locality-No effort to find out
any
alternative
accommodation-
concurrent
finding
of
facts-No
interference.

Held: Para 5

Learned counsel for the petitioner could
not demonstrate that the findings arrived
at by the prescribed authority and
affirmed by the appellate authority suffer
from any error, much less manifest error
of law or that the findings arrived at by
the prescribed authority and affirmed by
the appellate authority are perverse. In
this view of the matter and in view of the
law laid down by the apex Court reported
in (2003) 6 S.C.C., page 675 Surya Dev
Rai Vs Ram Chander Rai and others; and
2004 (2) A.W.C., page 1721 (SC) Ranjet
Singh Vs. Ravi Prakash, I do not find this
to be a fit case for interference by this
Court in exercise of power under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, thus, in
my opinion this writ petition has no force
and is accordingly dismissed.
Case law discussed:
1984 ARC 113
2003 (6) SCC-675
2004 (2) AWC 1729

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

1. By means of present writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner-tenant challenges the
orders passed by the prescribed authority
as well as by the appellate authority under
the provisions of U.P. Act No.XIII of
1972,.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All]
 Vinod Kumar V. Nathu Ram
231

2. The facts leading of the filing of
present
writ
petition
are
that
the
respondent-landlord filed an application
under Section 21 (1)(a) of the U.P. Act
No. XIII of 1972, here-in-after referred to
as 'the Act', before the prescribed
authority
for
the
release
of
the
accommodation in question in possession
of the petitioner-tenant on the ground that
at the time when the accommodation was
let out to the petitioner, the children of the
landlord were minor and the landlord was
in
possession
of
one
room
accommodation on the first floor, whereas
the tenant was in possession of ground
floor room. It has been further asserted in
the release application that the landlord
has three sons aged about 28 years, 25
years and 20 years, respectively and two
daughters aged about 22 years and 14
years,
respectively,
apart
from
the
landlord and his wife. That the large
family of the landlord feels difficulties in
residing in one room on the first floor
portion and because of the paucity of the
accommodation, the grown up sons could
not be married and their marriage are
being postponed. It is further asserted by
the landlord that the petitioner-tenant has
purchased a double story building in the
same municipality of Kasganj in Mohalla
Jai Jai Ram by registered sale deed dated
23rd June, 1998 in the name of his son,
namely, Vivek Kumar Bansal and is also
the
possession
of
the
aforesaid
accommodation was delivered to be son
of the tenant. It was therefore prayed that
in case the accommodation in question is
release in favour of the landlord, the
tenant can comfortably shift in the
accommodation acquired by the tenant as
the tenant and his son are not separate and
are living jointly.

3. The petitioner-tenant contested
the aforesaid release application filed by
the landlord-respondent and denied the
allegations made in the application under
Section 21 (1)(a) of the Act. Before the
prescribed authority, the parties have
exchanged their pleadings and adduced
evidence and the prescribed authority
after considering the arguments advanced
on behalf of the parties and the materials
on record have recorded a finding that the
need of the landlord is bonafide and
further that since the tenant has acquired
another house in Mohalla Jai Jai Ram in
the same municipality in the name of his
son, who is living with the landlord,
therefore he can comfortably shift to that
house, which is purchased in the name of
his son. The prescribed authority further
found that since the petitioner-tenant has
not made any effort to find out any
alternative accommodation after the filing
of the application under Section 21 (1)(a)
of the Act by the landlord, therefore in
view of the law laid down by this Court in
the case reported in 1984 A.R.C., 113 -
N.S. Datta and others Vs. The VII th
Addl. District Judge, Allahabad and
others, the tenant cannot take defence
regarding his alleged hardship. The
prescribed authority therefore vide order
dated 23rd November, 2002, copy whereof
is annexed as Annexure-'13' to the writ
petition, allowed the application filed by
the
landlord
and
released
the
accommodation in question in favour of
the landlord.

4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitionertenant preferred an appeal before the
appellate authority under Section 22 of
the Act, which has been registered as
Appeal No. 5 of 2002. Before the
appellate authority, the same arguments
were advanced and the appellate authority
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
[2005
 232
affirmed the finding with regard to
bonafide requirement of the landlord
arrived at by the prescribed authority. On
the question of comparative hardship,
since the tenant has already purchased
another house in the name of his son in
Mohalla
Jai
Jai am in the same
municipality by sale deed dated 23rd June,
1998 and is in possession of the same,
which fact has not been denied by the
tenant, except that the aforesaid is in
dilapidated
condition.

The
accommodation
acquired
by
the
petitioner-tenant consists of two rooms on
the ground floor, two rooms on the first
floor along with other amenities as such
on the question of comparative hardship,
the appellate authority found that the
findings arrived at by the prescribed
authority do not warrant any interference
in view of the provision of Explanation to
Section 21 of the U.P. Act No. XIII of
1972, which is reproduced below :-
"21. Proceedings for release of building
under occupation of tenant.------
(1) .............................................................

Explanation.----In
the
case
of
a
residential building :-

(i) where the tenant or any member of
his family [(who has been normally
residing with or is wholly dependent on
him)] has built or has otherwise acquired
in a vacant sate or has got vacated after
acquisition a residential building in the
same city, municipality, notified area or
town area, no objection by the tenant
against an application under this subsection shall be entertained;
(ii) ..........................................................

5. In this view of the matter, the
appellate authority vide order dated 6th
October, 2004, copy whereof is annexed
as Annexure-'16' to the writ petition,
dismissed
the
appeal
filed
by the
petitioner-tenant and affirmed the findings
arrived at by the prescribed authority.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner-tenant argued before me on
the basis of some transfer application filed
by him against the prescribed authority in
which no interim order was passed and
tries to make out a case that the prescribed
authority was acting malafide inasmuch
as in spite of the pendency of transfer
application, the prescribed authority has
proceeded with the disposal of the
application under Section 21 (1)(a) of the
Act
filed
by
respondent-landlord.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
submitted
that
in
all
fairness
the
prescribed authority ought not have
proceeded with the disposal of the release
application once he was informed of the
fact that transfer application seeking
transfer of the proceedings are pending.
This contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner cannot be accepted. It is not
disputed that there was no interim order
from any authority or from this Court
staying the hearing and disposal of the
release
application,
the
prescribed
authority, in my opinion, has not
committed any illegality if proceeded
with
the
disposal
of
the
release
application. On the question of the order
passed by the appellate authority, nothing
has been argued except the facts and
questions of law, which have already been
discussed above by the appellate authority
and the appellate authority affirmed the
findings arrived at by the prescribed
authority. Learned counsel for the
petitioner could not demonstrate that the
findings arrived at by the prescribed
authority and affirmed by the appellate
authority suffer from any error, much less
manifest error of law or that the findings
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All]
 The Union of India V. M/s Hari Shanker Gauri Shanker
233
 arrived at by the prescribed authority and
affirmed by the appellate authority are
perverse. In this view of the matter and in
view of the law laid down by the apex
Court reported in (2003) 6 S.C.C., page
675 Surya Dev Rai Vs Ram Chander
Rai and others; and 2004 (2) A.W.C.,
page 1721 (SC) Ranjet Singh Vs. Ravi
Prakash, I do not find this to be a fit case
for interference by this Court in exercise
of power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, thus, in my opinion
this writ petition has no force and is
accordingly dismissed. The interim order,
if any, stands vacated. However, the
parties shall bear their own costs.
Petition dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.02.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.N. SRIVASTAVA, J.

Second Appeal No. 1766 of 1976

The Union of India

 ...Appellant
Versus
M/S Hari Shanker Gauri Shanker

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Lal Ji Sinha
C.S.C.

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Radeshwari Prasad

Indian
Railways
Act-Section
77Consigment
Booked
at
Tatanagar-a
contract brought into existence between
the
consignor
and
the
Railways
administration-if consignment damaged
due to the Negligence of the employees
of Railways-held-The railways becomes
responsible for such loss or damageRailways being largest state owned
Corporation-Serving peoples of largest
democracy has to conduct itself with
elevated sense of responsibility with
utmost care and caution.

Held: Para 10 & 12

The consignees can maintain the suit
only if they proved their title to the
goods in transit. Where the consignor
and
consignee
are
different,
the
consignees
are
not
necessarily
the
owners of the goods. In the instant case,
the plaintiff is a consignor of goods
having a Railway Receipt in his hand. It
is
admitted
position
that
the
consignment was booked at Tatanagar
Siding by the consignor, which brought
into existence a contract of carriage
between the consignor and the Railway
Administration. In the circumstances, if
the consignment is damaged or loss due
to misconduct or negligence of the
employees
of
the
Railway
Administration,
the
latter
becomes
responsible for the loss and damage.

Before parting, I feel called to observe
that Indian Railways is the largest State
owned Corporation and by reason of
being a State owned Corporation, and
serving
the
people
of
the
largest
democracy of the world, it has to
conduct itself with elevated sense of
responsibility and with utmost care and
concern.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1966 SC 395

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.N. Srivastava, J.)

1. By means of the present second
appeal, the appellant has assailed the
judgment and decree dated 12.4.1973
rendered by Lower Appellate Court in
Civil Appeal No. 98 of 1974 whereby the
judgment and decree aforestated passed in
O.S. No. 10 of 1971 M/S Hari Shanker
Gauri Shanker v. Union of India was
affirmed.