# Uttam Chandra v. VIIIth A.D.J., Agra and others

- **Citation:** (2002) 2 ILRA 419
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2001-10-06
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8546 of 1991
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/uttam-chandra-v-viiith-a-d-j-agra-and-others-39917
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
420
U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972- Section 21 (i)
(a)- Release application- contested by
the brother of the tenant. Court below
recorded finding in favour of land lord to
be bonafide- writ court not to act as an
Appellate Court- when the brother is not
within the definition of family member of
the tenant- No question of consideration
of his comparative hardship arise.

Held- Para 5

The
Prescribed
Authority
has
made
categorical finding that the need of the
land lord is bonafide and genuine. Since
Uttam Chandra cannot be said to have
inherited the tenancy of Basu Deo and in
my opinion rightly the comparison of
needs does not arise.

## Text

2 All] Uttam Chandra Vs. VIIIth A.D.J., Agra and others
419
As far as the question of status of
deceased Murari Lal (now represented
though
his
legal
representatives-
petitioners nos. 2 to 6 and proforma
respondents nos. 4 and 5) is concerned,
the facts of the case speak for themselves.
It is not disputed by the petitioners that
Sahdeo Prasad was erstwhile tenant and
Bitto Devi being his wife became tenant
but shifted to her own house no. 62
Sanjay Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. There is not
even an iota of evidence that Bitto Devi
had ever paid rent to Murari Lal. Murari
Lal has no allotment order in his favour
and thus a trespasser who took law in his
own
hand
and
occupied
the
accommodation in question. Admittedly,
decree in original suit no. 1108 of 1987 is
in existence against the said Murari Lal.

13. In view of the above, Murari Lal
(since
deceased),
through
his
legal
representatives,
namely,
the
present
petitioners nos. 2 to 6 are not entitled to
invoke
extra
ordinary
discretionary
jurisdiction
under
Article
226,
Constitution of India.

14. Apart from it, the Revisional
Court has referred to a decision in the
case of Ashok Kapil Versus Sana Ullah
(dead) and others reported in 1996 (2)
Allahabad Rent Cases, 620 (paras 4 to 11)
wherein the Apex Court held that in case
rent control proceedings were initiated by
the District Magistrate, when the premises
had roof, the District Magistrate shall not
be ceased to have jurisdiction to pass an
allotment order in respect of it, even if it
becomes
subsequently
a
roofless
structure. The ratio of the decision is
'hence in the normal course respondent
can not secure assistance of a court of law
for enjoying the fruit of his own wrong.'
The reasoning of the said decision is that
incase
an
accommodation
is
being
removed or damaged by a voluntary act of
the owner/land lord, the same can not be
permitted to snatch and deprive the Rent
Control
Authorities
to
allot
an
accommodation.
However,
the
said
decision will not apply to the facts of a
case where roof of a certain building falls
down of its own. The petitioners concede
that this case is against them. I find no
manifest error apparent on the face of
record in the impugned order dated
8.2.1994 passed by the respondent no. 2
and the same is also affirmed by
Revisional Court's judgment and order
dated 6.10.2001.

15. In view of the above, it is not a
fit case in which an interference by this
Court under Article 226, Constitution of
India is warranted. The petition lacks
merit and is dismissed in limine.

16. No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD: 5.3.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8546 of 1991

Uttam Chandra

...Petitioner
Versus
VIIIth Additional District Judge, Agra
and others

 ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pradeep Kumar
Sri Swapnil Kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
S.C.
Sri Prakash Gupta
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
420
U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972- Section 21 (i)
(a)- Release application- contested by
the brother of the tenant. Court below
recorded finding in favour of land lord to
be bonafide- writ court not to act as an
Appellate Court- when the brother is not
within the definition of family member of
the tenant- No question of consideration
of his comparative hardship arise.

Held- Para 5

The
Prescribed
Authority
has
made
categorical finding that the need of the
land lord is bonafide and genuine. Since
Uttam Chandra cannot be said to have
inherited the tenancy of Basu Deo and in
my opinion rightly the comparison of
needs does not arise.

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

1. This is a tenant's writ petition
arising out of an application under Section
21 (i) (a) UP Act No. 13 of 1972 with
regard to non residential premises for
release in favour of the land lord.

2. The application was filed by the
land lord for the need of his son and
augmenting the income of family which
was contested by the petitioner.

3. Prescribed Authority have found
that the shop was originally let out to one
Basu Deo who admittedly died and
petitioner, Uttam Chandra is neither an
heir nor a family member. Petitioner
contested the aforesaid case set up by the
land lord that he is the real brother of the
deceased. Basu Deo and he was carrying
on the business with Basu Deo and
thereafter he himself is carrying on the
business in the capacity of Karta of an
undivided Hindu Family. The prescribed
authority after considering the material on
record arrived at the conclusion that the
need of the land lord is bonafide and
genuine.

4. On the aforesaid pleadings, the
prescribed authority considered the case
and found that Uttam Chandra, petitioner
admittedly is not the family member of
Basu Deo and further that Uttam
Chanadra failed to demonstrate that he is
a person on whom the tenancy of the shop
in question will devolve after the death of
Basu Deo. The finding of the labour court
was affirmed by the appellate court and
therefore Uttam Chandra cannot be said to
be a tenant of the accommodation in
question. On the question of bonafide
need the trail court after considering the
matter arrived at the conclusion that the
land lord's need is genuine and requires
the shop in question. On the question of
comparative hardship since the prescribed
Authority has held that the petitioner is
not a family member of Basu Deo hence
he cannot inherit the tenancy rights.
Prescribed
authority
allowed
the
application. Uttam Chandra preferred an
appeal. The appellate court affirmed the
view taken by the prescribed authority
and it is this order against which this writ
petition is filed.

5. I have heard Sri Swapnil Kumar
in support of his writ petition who tried to
make out a case that the findings recorded
by the prescribed authority on the
bonafide need of the land lord suffers
from error of law. But he could not point
out any such error. This court will not sit
in appeal over the findings recorded by
the prescribed authority and appellate
authority. The prescribed authority has
made categorical finding that the need of
the land lord is bonafide and genuine.
Since Uttam Chandra cannot be said to
have inherited the tenancy of Basu Deo
2 All] Vijay Kumar Mishra Vs. Superintendent, District Jail, Gorakhpur and others
421
and in my opinion rightly the comparison
of needs does not arise.

6. Sri Swapnil Kumar wanted to
raise objection that in any view of the
matter, the possession of Uttam Chandra
should
be
deemed
to
have
been
regularized under Section 14 of U.P. Act
No. 13 of 1972. This point has not been
raised
either
before
the
prescribed
authority or before the appellate authority.

7. In this view of the matter, the
petitioner cannot be permitted to raise a
point which requires evidence after a gap
of about 22 years of filing application
under Section 21(i) (a) of U.P. Act No. 13
of 1972.

8. In view of the aforesaid
discussion the petition is dismissed. There
will, however, be order as to cost.

9. Shri Swapnil Kumar requested
that the tenant may be granted sometime
to vacate the shop in question. Sri Prakash
Gupta has not objected to this. I think in
the interest of justice four months' time
may be granted from today to petitioner to
vacate the accommodation in question
and hand over the vacant possession of
accommodation provided Uttam Chandra
deposits the mean profit at the rate of then
existing rent alongwith interest at bank
rate and the land lord is entitled to
withdraw the same alongwith usual
undertaking
before
the
prescribed
authority within 15 days from today.

10. The petition is dismissed except
with the aforesaid observations.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.07.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE R.B. MISRA, J.

Habeas Corpus petition no. 20142 of 2002

Vijay Kumar Mishra

...Petitioner
Versus
Superintendent, District Jail, Gorakhpur
and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Daya Shanker Misra
Sri C.K. Misra
Sri L.K. Dwevedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Government Counsel
Sri Ajit Kumar Singh

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226-
Detention order- challenge made in two
aspects- authority not told about right of
representation-
secondly-
detention
order itself can not fix the period of
detention.

Held- Para 4

As already stated above, we were
disinclined to interfere in such a case but
we have to do so with a heavy heart as
the law of Habeas Corpus is a technical
law and there are two points on which
the petition has to be allowed. Firstly, it
is alleged in paragraphs 25,26 and 27 of
the petition that the Detaining Authority
did not informe the petitioner that he
has a right to make a representation
against the detention order to the
Detaining Authority. This fact is not
disputed by the respondents. Hence in
view of the Division Bench decision of
this Court in Jai Prakash Shastri v.
Adhishak Janpad Karagar 2000 (41) ACC
883 which followed the decision of the
Supreme Court in State of Maharastra