# Smt. Satyawati Devi & Ors v. Ist. A.D.J. and Ors

- **Citation:** (2013) 3 ILRA 1474
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-11-19
- **Case number:** Rent Control No.5886 of 1987
- **Bench:** Sibghat Ullah Khan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-satyawati-devi-ors-v-ist-a-d-j-and-ors-42728
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

C.S.C., Sri O.P. Misra

U.P.
Urban
Building(Regulation
of
Letting Rent and Eviction) Act 1973Section 21-Eviction on ground of bona
fide need-both the authorities belowheld-need of land lord not bonafideduring pendancy of writ petition land
lord died-writ court can not consider the
bonafide need of heirs of land lordexpect the prescribed authority-petition
dismissed as infructous with liberty to
file fresh application-till such application
decided-tenant to give enhanced rent-as
per dictum of Apex Court.

Held: Para-9
However, as both the courts below held
that his need was not bona fide hence there
is absolutely no occasion to consider in this
writ petition as to whether the deceased
(Shankar Lal) had proved his need or not. It
would be purely academic. Learned counsel
for petitioners argued that petitioners
belong to business community and need for
the sons of Shankar Lal may be presumed.
However need has to be proved and not
presumed. It will be highly improper to
decide as to whether substituted legal
representatives of Shankar Lal have got any
bona fide need in the writ petition for the
first time. This is basically the job of the
Prescribed Authority.

Case Law discussed:
2006(1) ARC 157; 2004(2) ARC 64; AIR 1997
SC 2510.

## Text

1474 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
affording opportunity of being heard to
the parties.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.11.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN, J.

Rent Control No.5886 of 1987

Smt. Satyawati Devi & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Ist. A.D.J. and Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri U.K. Srivastava, Sri K.C. Gupta
Sri Umesh Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri O.P. Misra

U.P.
Urban
Building(Regulation
of
Letting Rent and Eviction) Act 1973Section 21-Eviction on ground of bona
fide need-both the authorities belowheld-need of land lord not bonafideduring pendancy of writ petition land
lord died-writ court can not consider the
bonafide need of heirs of land lordexpect the prescribed authority-petition
dismissed as infructous with liberty to
file fresh application-till such application
decided-tenant to give enhanced rent-as
per dictum of Apex Court.

Held: Para-9
However, as both the courts below held
that his need was not bona fide hence there
is absolutely no occasion to consider in this
writ petition as to whether the deceased
(Shankar Lal) had proved his need or not. It
would be purely academic. Learned counsel
for petitioners argued that petitioners
belong to business community and need for
the sons of Shankar Lal may be presumed.
However need has to be proved and not
presumed. It will be highly improper to
decide as to whether substituted legal
representatives of Shankar Lal have got any
bona fide need in the writ petition for the
first time. This is basically the job of the
Prescribed Authority.

Case Law discussed:
2006(1) ARC 157; 2004(2) ARC 64; AIR 1997
SC 2510.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.)

1. Heard Sri U.K. Srivastava, learned
counsel for petitioners and Sri O.P. Mishra,
learned counsel for contesting respondent
tenant.

2. This is landlords' writ petition
arising out of eviction/ release proceedings
initiated by them under Section 21 of U.P.
Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent
and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred
to as U.P. Act No.13 of 1972) on the ground
of bona fide need. Release application was
filed by Shanker Lal and Babu Ram, both
real brothers and their mother Smt. Bitana in
the form of P.A. Case No.31 of 1976, Babu
Ram and others Vs. Om Prkash. Smt. Bitana
died during pendency of release applications
and was survived by the other two
applicants, hence her name was deleted. Sri
Babu Ram also died on 25.11.1983 and was
substituted by his widow Smt. Stayawati,
original petitioner No.1. Both the petitioners
i.e. Smt. Satyawati and Sri Shanker Lal died
during pendency of the writ petition and
were
substituted
by
their
legal
representatives. Original tenant respondent
No.3, Om Prakash also died during pendency
of writ petition and was substituted by his
legal representatives.

3. Twice the matter was remanded
by the lower appellate court. After second
remand, the Prescribed Authority, Munsif
Barabanki
dismissed
the
release
application on 22.08.1984. Against the
said order, original petitioners filed Rent
3 All] Smt. Satyawati Devi & Ors. Vs. Ist A.D.J. and Ors.
1475
Control Appeal No.5 of 1984. First A.D.J.
Barabanki dismissed the appeal on
04.04.1987, hence this writ petition.

4. The need set up in the release
application was for Shanker Lal, original
petitioner No.2. It was stated that he
proposed to start business in the shop in
dispute. The courts below held that his
need was not bona fide.

5. In the release application it was
stated that Shaker Lal had a large family
to look after, however the need for any of
his sons/ daughters was not set up. It was
also not pleaded that any of his sons or
daughters will assist him in the business.

6. The findings recorded by the
courts below were challenged by learned
counsel for petitioners and learned
counsel for contesting respondents had
defended the same.

7. In my opinion, there is no need to
decide the correctness of the findings of
the courts below for the reason that Sri
Shankar Lal for whose need release
application
was
filed
died
during
pendency of this writ petition.

8. Learned counsel for both the parties
have cited several authorities in respect of
subsequent events, their effect and power of
court to take them into consideration. I have
discussed this aspect in an authority
reported in Dipti Singh Vs. II A.D.J.,
Mainpuri, 2006 (1) ARC 157. Para-8 of the
said authority is quoted below:

"In Shakuntala Bai Vs. Narain Das,
AIR 2004 SC 3484 decided on 5.5.2004,
it was held that subsequent event of death
of landlord is not to be taken into
consideration.
However
in
another
authority decided on 13.10.2004 reported
in K.N.Agarwal Vs. Dhanraji Devi, 2004
(2) ARC 764 a contrary view was taken
and it was held by the Supreme Court that
death of the landlord during pendency of
the writ petition for whose need the shop
in dispute was released by the courts
below made the release order passed by
the
courts
below
ineffective
and
inexecutable as due to the death of the
landlord the need vanished and in case his
heirs were interested in doing business
they could file a fresh release application.
Unfortunately in the later authority of
K.N.Agarwal the earlier authority of
Shakuntala Bai was not considered. In
Kamleshwar Prasad Vs. B.Agarwal AIR
1997 SC 2399 also it was held that death
of the landlord does not make any
difference. The said case arose out of U.P
Rent Control Act and was considered in
Shakuntala Bai's case."

9. If need of Shanker Lal had been
found bona fide by the courts below, it
might have been necessary to decide that
what would be the effect of his death
during pendency of the writ petition.
However, as both the courts below held
that his need was not bona fide hence
there is absolutely no occasion to consider
in this writ petition as to whether the
deceased (Shankar Lal) had proved his
need or not. It would be purely academic.
Learned counsel for petitioners argued
that
petitioners
belong
to
business
community and need for the sons of
Shankar Lal may be presumed. However
need has to be proved and not presumed.
It will be highly improper to decide as to
whether substituted legal representatives
of Shankar Lal have got any bona fide
need in the writ petition for the first time.
This is basically the job of the Prescribed
Authority.
1476 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. Accordingly, without entering
into the merit of the case, writ petition is
to be dismissed as infructuous only on the
ground that the person for whose need
release application was filed and rejected
died during pendnecy of the writ petition.
Any of the legal representatives of
Shankar Lal or any other landlord(s) may
file fresh release application for his/ their
need. If such an application is filed, it
shall be decided on the basis of evidence
brought on record and in accordance with
law. Any finding recorded in the
impugned orders challenged through this
writ petition whether of fact or law shall
not be either treated as binding or even
taken into consideration while deciding
the release application, which may be
filed by any of the present landlords.

11. I have held in Khursheeda
Versus A.D.J, 2004 (2) ARC 64 and
H.M.Kichlu Vs. A.D.J 2004(2) ARC 652
that while granting relief to the tenant
against eviction or maintaining the said
relief already granted by the court below
in respect of building covered by Rent
Control Act, writ court is empowered to
enhance the rent to a reasonable extent.
Under somewhat similar circumstances
the Supreme Court in the authority
reported in A.K Bhatt Vs. R.M Shah AIR
1997 SC 2510 enhanced the rent from Rs.
101/- per month to Rs. 3500/- per month
with effect from the date of the judgment
of the Supreme Court. For the period
during which appeal remained pending
before the Supreme Court rent was
enhanced to Rs. 2000/- per month for
some of the period and Rs. 2500/- per
month for rest of the period. In the said
authority release application of the
landlord had been allowed by the courts
below. The Supreme Court held that the
landlord who had sought release of the
building when he was about 54 years of
age had become 87 years of age when the
matter was decided by the Supreme Court
hence he was not in a position to do any
business. This fact of old age of the
landlord was taken into consideration as
relevant subsequent event by the Supreme
Court.

12. Property in dispute is a shop
situate
in
the
main
market
near
Dharmshala Barabanki as stated in para-1
of the release application.

13. Accordingly, it is directed that
w.e.f. December, 2013 onward tenants
respondents shall pay rent to the landlords
petitioners at the rate of Rs.1000/- per
month. (Existing rent is Rs.60/- per month
as stated in para-9 of the release
application, which is virtually as well as
actually no rent for a shop.) This
enhancement of rent is irrespective of the
claim of enhanced rent made in S.C.C.
Suit No.1/13, Harish Chandra Gupta Vs.
Rajendra Kumar, stated to be pending
before J.S.C.C./ Civil Judge (S.D.), Court
No.20, Barabanki. The matter subjudice
in the said suit shall be decided in
accordance with evidence brought on
record therein and the legal position.

14. Writ Petition is accordingly
dismissed as infructuous with the above
observations and directions.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.10.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MANOJ MISRA, J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8511 of 2007

The Nagar Panchayat, Sirauli, Bareilly &
Ors. ...Petitioners