# Sri Kant Tenant/ v. Mool Chand & Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 3 ILRA 330
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-09-25
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 15191 of 2019
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sri-kant-tenant-v-mool-chand-ors-44883
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Law-UP
Urban
Buildings
(Regulation
of
Letting,
Rent
and
Eviction) Act, 1972 - Rule 15 (3) - Rent
case- release application under Section
21(1) of the Act- decided within two
months
from
the
date
of
its
presentation- expeditious disposal of
rent cases is the statutory mandate- the
defendant-tenant/petitioner
is
very
affluent person- grossly abused the
process of Court to delay the disposal of
the P.A. Case filed by the poor landlord-
contesting the case from last more than
35 years to get the disputed shop so as
to carry on his business but on one
pretext or the other the defendanttenant/petitioner is not allowing the
matter to be concluded-The appeal is
being
kept
pending
by
moving
successive
applications-Frivolous
and
groundless filings constitute a serious
menace to the administration of justice.
They
consume
time
and
clog
the
infrastructure-duty of every court to
firmly deal with such situations. The
imposition of exemplary costs is a
necessary instrument which has to be
deployed to weed out, as well as to
prevent the filing of frivolous cases.
 (Para 11,20)

Writ petition dismissed with exemplary
cost of Rs.50,000/- (E-7)

List of cases cited:-

## Text

330 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
06.06.2019 and the subsequent order of
confirmation and extension of the period
of detention are hereby quashed. The
petitioner shall be set at liberty forthwith
unless wanted in any other case. There is
no order as to costs.
----------

(2019)11ILR A330

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.09.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.

Writ-A No. 15191 of 2019

Sri Kant ...Tenant/Petitioner
Versus
Mool Chand & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Mohd. Sarwar Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Dharmendra Kumar Dwivedi

A.
Civil
Law-UP
Urban
Buildings
(Regulation
of
Letting,
Rent
and
Eviction) Act, 1972 - Rule 15 (3) - Rent
case- release application under Section
21(1) of the Act- decided within two
months
from
the
date
of
its
presentation- expeditious disposal of
rent cases is the statutory mandate- the
defendant-tenant/petitioner
is
very
affluent person- grossly abused the
process of Court to delay the disposal of
the P.A. Case filed by the poor landlord-
contesting the case from last more than
35 years to get the disputed shop so as
to carry on his business but on one
pretext or the other the defendanttenant/petitioner is not allowing the
matter to be concluded-The appeal is
being
kept
pending
by
moving
successive
applications-Frivolous
and
groundless filings constitute a serious
menace to the administration of justice.
They
consume
time
and
clog
the
infrastructure-duty of every court to
firmly deal with such situations. The
imposition of exemplary costs is a
necessary instrument which has to be
deployed to weed out, as well as to
prevent the filing of frivolous cases.
 (Para 11,20)

Writ petition dismissed with exemplary
cost of Rs.50,000/- (E-7)

List of cases cited:-

1. Avinash Chandra Tiwari Vs ADJ (2010) 2
ARC 84

2.
Mohd.
Ali
Vs
Prescribed
Authority,
Moradabad & ors. Writ - A No. 31854 of 2017

3. M/s. Gujrati Namkeen Bhandar Vs Ratan Lal
Gupta & 3 ors. (Matters Under Article 227 No.
5625 of 2017)

4. Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik and another Vs
Pradnya Prakash Khadekar & ors. (2017) 5
SCC 496 (paras 12,13 & 14)

5. Haryana State Cooperative Labour &
Construction Federation Limited Vs Unique
Cooperative
Labour
and
Construction
Cooperative Society Limited & anr. (2018) 14
SCC 248.

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

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Sarwar Khan,
learned
counsel
for
the
defendanttenant/petitioner and Sri Dharmendra
Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the
plaintiffs-landlords/respondents.

2. Briefly stated facts of the present
case are that the plaintiff - Deepchand
was the owner and landlord of house
bearing
Municipal
No.246/1
(New
No.276/1), Mohalla - Tartala, Pargana -
3 All. Sri Kant Vs. Mool Chand & Ors.
331
Haveli, District - Jaunpur. There is a shop
in the said house in which one Ram
Krishna Rokadia (original tenant) was a
tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.10/-. After
the death of the original tenant, the
tenancy was succeeded by his three sons,
namely, Purshottam, Ram Niwas and Sri
Niwas. The aforesaid original owner and
landlord filed a P.A. Case No.16 of 1984
for
eviction
of
the
defendanttenant/petitioner on the ground of his
bonafide need of the disputed shop for
setting up business. It was stated in
paragraph 5 of the Release Application
dated 01.08.1984, that the plaintiff No.1
is intermediate pass and trained in
electronics and want to do his business,
plaintiff nos. 2 and 4 are Karigar (Artisan)
of sweetmeat but due to non availability
of a shop they are unemployed and
plaintiff no.3 is carrying on tea stall on
Chabutara (raised platform) of Arya
Samaj Mandir. The plaintiff gave details
of huge immovable properties and houses
owned by the defendant-tenant in Jaunpur
City and Malegaon in Nasik. They stated
that the defendant no.3 - Sri Niwas is a
Government
Servant
employed
as
Entertainment Inspector. It has also been
stated that the defendants owned a big
house at the main road, Mandi Naseeb
Khan, Jaunpur, measuring 90 feet x 25
feet in which about 50 shops have been
constructed. Thus, briefly on these facts
the plaintiffs-landlords/respondents filed
the aforesaid P.A. Case No.16 of 1984,
under Section 21(1) of the U.P. Act XIII
of 1972, which was allowed by the
Prescribed Authority by judgment dated
28.07.1986, against which the defendanttenant/petitioner filed a Rent Appeal
No.16 of 1986 which was allowed by
judgment and order dated 06.12.2005 and
the
matter
was
remanded
to
the
Prescribed Authority. The order of
remand was challenged by the plaintiffs
in Writ - A No.14687 of 2006, which was
dismissed by this Court by Order dated
02.01.2013. During remand proceedings
before the Prescribed Authority, the
defendant-tenant
moved
successive
applications. One such application was
moved for issue of Commission which
was ultimately allowed by this Court by
order dated 01.10.2015 in Writ Petition
No.56071 of 2015 and the Commission
submitted his report dated 21.11.2015. In
the mean time on 29.07.2015, the
defendant-tenant
filed
an
additional
written submissions making averment that
the Gumti (Kiosk) kept on Chabutara of
Arya Samaj for carrying out tea stall by
the plaintiff, has been converted in Pakka
construction.

3. Thereafter on 20.12.2016, the
defendant-tenant/petitioner
filed
an
application
380
Ga
and
also
an
application
384
Ga
for
issue
of
Commission which were rejected by
order dated 05.01.2017, passed by the
Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (S.D.),
Jaunpur. In the said order the Prescribed
Authority
observed
that
earlier
a
Commission was issued in the year 1985
which submitted its report being paper
No.91 Ga and 92 Ga that the plaintiff has
kept a Gumti over the Arya Samaj Mandir
land/Chabutara to carry on tea stall. The
Prescribed Authority also observed about
the conduct of the defendant-tenant as
under:-

^^ eqdnek 33 o"kksZ ls yfEcr gS vkSj
foi{kh dksbZ u dksbZ izkFkZuk&i= nsdj eqdnesa dks
foyfEcr djrk pyk vk jgk gSA foi{kh dk
izkFkZuk&i= eSykQkbMh gS vkSj iks"k.kh; ugh gSA ----
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
-----------------
332 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
izkFkZuk&i= 380x vkSj 384x nksuksa gh izkFkZuk&i=
foi{kh i{k dh vksj ls okn dks yfEcr j[kus dh ea'kk
ls izLrqr fd;k tkuk nf'kZr gksrk gS vkSj i=koyh ds
lE;d:is.k ifj'khyu ls foi{kh i{k dk tks vkpj.k
nf'kZr gksrk gS] og ;g nf'kZr gksrk gS fd iwoZ esa Hkh
foi{kh i{k dk vkpj.k ;su&dsu&izdkjs.k okn dks
foyfEcr j[kus dk jgk gSA foi{kh i{k u dsoy okn
ds fopkj.k dks bl U;k;ky; ds le{k foyfEcr dj
jgk gS] cfYd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dh ea'kk dks
Hkh foQy djuk pkgrk gS vkSj ftls Lohdkj ugha
fd;k tk ldrk gSA mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa
izkFkZuk&i= 380x ,oa 384x fujLr gksus ;ksX; gS gh
ijUrq mDr nksuks izkFkZuk&i= Hkkjh gtkZus ds lkFk
fujLr gksus ;ksX; gS rkfd bl izfdz;k dks
grksRlkfgr fd;k tk lds fd vk'k;iwoZd dksbZ Hkh
i{kdkj okn dks foyfEcr u djsa vkSj u gh ekuuh;
mPp U;k;ky; dh ea'kk dks foyfEcr djus dk
iz;kl dj ldsA^^

4. Against the aforesaid order of the
Prescribed Authority, dated 05.01.2017,
rejecting the application 380 Ga and 384
Ga, the defendant-tenant/petitioner - Sri
Kant filed Writ - A No.2381 of 2017 and
the writ petition was disposed of
observing that there is no good reason to
entertain it. However, it was left open to
the petitioner to challenge the correctness
of the order and raise appropriate
pleading before the appellate court in the
event the Prescribed Authority takes a
decision against the tenant-petitioner.
Thereafter, the aforesaid P.A. Case No.16
of 1984 was allowed by judgment and
order dated 03.04.2017, passed by the
Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (S.D.),
Jaunpur, and the disputed shop was
released. A finding of fact was also
recorded that the tea stall being carried on
over the Chabutara of Arya Samaj Mandir
is temporary and it is not owned by the
plaintiff and Plaintiff's bonafide need for
the disputed shop and comparative
hardship to be in his favour was found
proved.

5. Aggrieved with the judgment and
order of the Prescribed Authority dated
03.04.2017,
the
defendanttenant/petitioner Sri Kant filed a Rent
Control Appeal No. 1 of 2017 (Sri Kant
and others Vs. Mool Chand and Others).

6. In the said appeal, the
defendant-tenant/petitioner
again
started moving successive applications.
He moved application 46 Ga for the
same purpose for which he earlier
moved an application 380 Ga and 384
Ga
which
were
rejected
by
the
Prescribed Authority by order dated
05.01.2017 and the Writ - A No.2381 of
2017, challenging it was disposed of by
order
dated
18.01.2017
as
aforementioned. The application 46 Ga
has been rejected by order dated
20.04.2019,
passed
by
the
4th
Additional District Judge, Jaunpur.
Against this order the defendanttenant/petitioner
moved
a
recall
application 55 Ga which has been
rejected by the impugned order dated
09.07.2019.

7. Aggrieved with these two orders,
namely, the orders dated 20.4.2019 and
09.07.2019,
the
defendanttenant/petitioner has filed the present writ
petition
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India.

8.

Despite
insistence
learned
counsel for the tenant-petitioner has not
made any submission except that the
matter may be considered leniently.

9. Learned counsel for the plaintiffslandlords/respondents
supports
the
impugned orders.
3 All. Sri Kant Vs. Mool Chand & Ors.
333

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

11. Rule 15 (3) of the UP Urban
Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent
and Eviction) Act, 1972, provides that
every release application under Section
21(1) of the Act shall as far as possible be
decided within two months from the date
of its presentation. Thus, expeditious
disposal of rent cases is the statutory
mandate.

12. I have very briefly noted facts of
the present case which leaves no manner
of
doubt
that
the
defendanttenant/petitioner is very affluent person.
He has grossly abused the process of
Court to delay the disposal of the P.A.
Case filed by the poor landlord. The poor
landlord is contesting the case from last
more than 35 years to get the disputed
shop so as to carry on his business but on
one pretext or the other the defendanttenant/petitioner is not allowing the
matter to be concluded. The appeal is
being kept pending by moving successive
applications. Liberty was granted to the
defendant-tenant/petitioner by this Court
by order dated 18.01.2017 in Writ A
No.2381 of 2017 to challenge the
correctness of the order dated 05.01.2017
in appeal if the Prescribed Authority takes
decision against him but instead of
arguing
the
appeal
on
merits
the
defendant-tenant/petitioner
continued
with his design to move successive
applications to delay disposal of the
Appeal. He moved application 46 Ga for
the same purpose for which he earlier
moved application 380 Ga and 384 Ga
which were rejected on merit.

13. Deliberately, the defendanttenant/petitioner has not filed copy of the
judgment and order dated 03.04.2017,
passed
by
the
Civil
Judge
(S.D.)/Prescribed
Authority,
Jaunpur,
deciding the P.A. Case No.16 of 1984.
However, on being asked a photo stat
copy of it has been produced by the
learned
counsel
for
the
defendanttenant/petitioner.

14. In the impugned order, the
appellate court has recorded cogent
reasons for rejecting the application 46
Ga. Therefore, the impugned order dated
20.04.2019
requires
no
interference.
Since the order dated 20.04.2019 was
passed on merit, therefore, the recall
application 55 Ga was lawfully rejected
by the Appellate Court by the impugned
order dated 09.07.2019.

15. Apart from above, It is settled
law that 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 of 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.

16. 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:
334 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"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
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
3 All. Sri Kant Vs. Mool Chand & Ors.
335
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
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."

17. The principles aforementioned
are also supported by the law laid down
by this Court in Mohd. Ali Vs.
Prescribed Authority, Moradabad and
others, Writ - A No. 31854 of 2017
decided on 29.08.2017 and in M/s.
Gujrati Namkeen Bhandar Vs. Ratan
Lal Gupta & 3 Ors (Matters Under
Article 227 No. 5625 of 2017) decided
on 12.09.2017.

18. Thus, for all the reasons
aforestated, I find that the present writ
petition is a frivolous petition which has
been filed to delay disposal of the Rent
Control Appeal No.1 of 2017 arising from
the P.A. Case No.16 of 1984. The
prescribed Authority has also observed in
the order dated 05.01.2017 (relevant
portion quoted in para 3 above) about the
conduct of the tenant petitioner regarding
abuse of process of court.

19. In the case of Dnyandeo Sabaji
Naik and another Vs. Pradnya Prakash
Khadekar and others 2017(5) SCC 496
(paras 12,13 & 14) Hon'ble Supreme
Court commended all courts to deal
strongly with frivolous petition. The
judgement in the case of Dnyandeo
Sabaji Naik (supra) has been followed
by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of
Haryana State Cooperative Labour
and Construction Federation Limited
Vs. Unique Cooperative Labour and
Construction
Cooperative
Society
Limited and another, (2018)14 SCC
248.

20. In the case of Dnyandeo Sabaji
Naik (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that "Court must view with
disfavour any attempt by a litigant to
abuse the process. The sanctity of the
judicial process will be seriously eroded
if such attempts are not dealt with
firmly. A litigant who takes liberties
with the truth or with the procedures
of the Court should be left in no doubt
about the consequences to follow.
Others should not venture along the
same path in the hope or on a
misplaced
expectation
of
judicial
leniency.
Exemplary
costs
are
inevitable, and even necessary, in order
to ensure that in litigation, as in the law
which is practised in our country, there
is no premium on the truth. Courts
across the legal system - this Court not
being an exception - are choked with
litigation. Frivolous and groundless
filings constitute a serious menace to
the administration of justice. They
consume
time
and
clog
the
infrastructure.
Productive
resources
which should be deployed in the handling
of genuine causes are dissipated in
attending to cases filed only to benefit
336 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
from delay, by prolonging dead issues
and pursuing worthless causes. No litigant
can have a vested interest in delay.
Unfortunately, as the present case
exemplifies, the process of dispensing
justice is misused by the unscrupulous
to the detriment of the legitimate. The
present case is an illustration of how a
simple issue has occupied the time of
the courts and of how successive
applications have been filed to prolong
the inevitable. The person in whose
favour the balance of justice lies has in
the process been left in the lurch by
repeated attempts to revive a stale
issue. This tendency can be curbed
only if courts across the system adopt
an
institutional
approach
which
penalizes
such
behaviour.
Liberal
access to justice does not mean access
to chaos and indiscipline. A strong
message must be conveyed that courts
of justice will not be allowed to be
disrupted
by
litigative
strategies
designed to profit from the delays of
the law. Unless remedial action is
taken by all courts here and now our
society will breed a legal culture based
on evasion instead of abidance. It is the
duty of every court to firmly deal with
such situations. The imposition of
exemplary
costs
is
a
necessary
instrument which has to be deployed to
weed out, as well as to prevent the
filing of frivolous cases. It is only then
that the courts can set apart time to
resolve genuine causes and answer the
concerns of those who are in need of
justice. Imposition of real time costs is
also necessary to ensure that access to
courts is available to citizens with
genuine grievances. Otherwise, the
doors would be shut to legitimate
causes simply by the weight of
undeserving cases which flood the
system. Such a situation cannot be
allowed to come to pass. Hence it is
not merely a matter of discretion but a
duty and obligation cast upon all courts
to ensure that the legal system is not
exploited by those who use the forms
of the law to defeat or delay justice".

21.

Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
commended all courts to deal frivolous
filings in the same manner. The law laid
down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik (supra), is a
binding precedent under Article 141 of
the Constitution of India. The subordinate
courts are also bound to deal frivolous
petitions and abuse of process of Court in
the manner as has been commended by
Hon'ble Supreme Court as aforesaid.

22. For all the reasons aforestated, I
do not find any merit in this writ petition.
Consequently, the writ petition fails and is
hereby dismissed with exemplary cost of
Rs.50,000/- for blatant abuse of process of
Court by defendant-tenant/petitioner to
delay the disposal of the appeal and for
filing frivolous petition. The cost shall be
deposited by the defendant-petitioner with
the court below within two months from
today and on deposit it may be withdrawn
by the plaintiffs.

23. It is further provided that the
appellate
court
shall
decide
the
aforesaid Rent Control Appeal No. 1 of
2017, in accordance with law, without
being
influenced
by
any
of
the
observations made in the body of this
order; within three months from the
date of presentation of a certified copy
of this order without granting any
unnecessary adjournment to either of
the parties.
----------
3 All. Kishan Chandra Vs. Dinesh Chandra & Ors.
337
(2019)11ILR A337

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.09.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.

Writ-A No. 52198 of 2014

Kishan Chandra ...Petitioner
Versus
Dinesh Chandra & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rishi Kant Singh, Sri Abu Bakht, Sri
Pramod Kumar Jain, Sri R.K. Jain

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Swapnil Kumar, Sri Sudhanshu Kumar,
Ms. Trapti Gupta

A. Civil Law-U.P. Act XIII of 1972 - Uttar
Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of
Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972-
Release application under Section 21-
Rent case-Crucial date for release of the
accommodation in a rent case on the
ground of bonafide need of the landlord-
effect of the death of the landlord during
pendency of writ petition - legality of
direction given by the Appellate Court to
the
landlord
to
provide
alternative
accommodation to the tenant.
 (Para 24,26,27)

B. Crucial date for bonafide need in an
application for release and effect of
subsequent event of death of landlord-
"actus curiae neminem gravabit" that
"an act of the Court shall prejudice no
man" shall also come into operation The
need of the landlord for premises in question
must exist on the date of application for
eviction, which is the crucial date and it is on
the said date the tenant incurred the liability
of being evicted therefrom- Even if the
landlord died during the pendency of the writ
petition in the High Court, the bona fide need
cannot be said to have lapsed as the business
in question can be carried on by his widow or
any other son. (Para 24,27)

C. Whether Appellate Court can direct
the landlord to provide an alternative
accommodation to the tenant in the
premises owned or partly owned by his
son or wife -.No power has been conferred
to issue a direction to the landlord to provide
an alternative accommodation to the tenant as
a condition for release of the disputed
accommodation- the direction of the appellate
court
to
the
landlord
to
provide
an
accommodation to the respondent-tenant is
without jurisdiction. (Para 26,27)

Petition allowed with costs (E-7)

Precedent followed: -

1. Shakuntala Bai & ors. Vs Narayan Das &
ors. (2004) 5 SCC 772

2. Shantilal Thakordas & ors. Vs Chimanlal
Maganlal Telwala (1976) 4 SCC 417

3. Kamleshwar Prasad Vs Pradumanju Agarwal
(Dead) by LRs., (1997) 4 SCC 413

Precedent over -ruled: -

1. Phul Rani & ors. Vs Naubat Rai Ahluwalia,
(1973) 1 SCC 688 (Para-21)

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

"Crucial date for release of the
accommodation in a rent case on the
ground of bonafide need of the landlord,
effect of the death of the landlord during
pendency of writ petition and legality of
direction given by the Appellate Court to
the landlord to provide alternative
accommodation to the tenant, are the
main questions involved in this petition."

1- Heard Sri Pramod Kumar Jain,
learned Senior Advocated, assisted by Sri