# Zamir Ahmad and others v. Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Bulandshahr and others

- **Citation:** (2007) 1 ILRA 142
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-08-30
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.25401 of 2002
- **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/zamir-ahmad-and-others-v-additional-district-judge-court-no-5-bulandshahr-and-40806
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921Section 16 (g) (1) read with U.P. Act No.
5
of
1982-Section
21-Suspension
pending
enquiry-Charges
of
embezzlement-management
send
proposal for approval-in the meantime
disciplinary
proceeding
concludedpunishment of dismissal-D.I.O.S. failed
to refer the matter to the secondary
Education
Services
selection
Boardhence writ petition by managementheld-after expiry of 60 days-suspension
order became inoperative-hence entitled
for salary during suspension period till
the final decision of Board.

Held: Para 21 & 22

In the facts of the case, there is no order
of
District
Inspector
of
Schools
approving
the
suspension
of
the
Principal of the institution. Consequently
the order of suspension passed by the
Committee of Management ceases to
exist in the eyes of law after expiry of 60
days of its being communicated and
therefore, the principal of the institution
becomes entitled for full salar for the
period subsequents to expiry of 60 days
form the date he was placed under
suspension. Accordingly it is provided
that the principal of the institution shall
be entitled to his full salary for the
period the order of suspension was nonexistent in the-eyes of law i.e. 28th
August, 2005 till the conclusion of the
proceedings
by
the
U.P.
Secondary
Education Services Selection Board as
directed herein above.

Till such decision by the U.P. Secondary
Education Services Selection Board as
aforesaid, the Principal of the institution
shall be entitled to his full salary, it shall
be
open
to
the
Committee
of
Management of the institution to take
work or not to take work of the post of
principal from the petitioner.
Case law discussed:
1995 (1) UPLBEC-460
1992 (2) UPLBEC-132
1994 (23) ALR-334

## Text

142 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
passed by the executing Court. The writ
petition fails and is dismissed.

Petition Dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.08.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.25401 of 2002

Zamir Ahmad and others
...Petitioner
Versus
Additional District Judge, Court No.5,
Bulandshahr and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri R.B. Singhal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Y.S. Bohra

U.P.
Urban
Building
(Regulation
of
Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972Section 21 (1) (a)-Release applicationbonafide
need-during
pendency
of
proceeding-tenant acquired alternative
accommodation-consideration
of
bonafide need and comparative hardship
not required.

Held: Para 3

The appellate Court failed to take into
consideration the fact that the tenant
has his own shop which is hardly 100
metres away from the shop, in dispute
where he has established his son in
business.
The
application
of
the
petitioner was moved under Section 21
(1)(a)
of
the
U.P.
Urban
Building
(Regulation
of
Letting,
Rent
and
Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Act). Once the tenant acquired
an alternative accommodation in vacant
possession and established his son in
business, question of bona fide need and
comparative hardship would not relevant
on the analogy of Explanation (1) to
Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. It was not
open for the appellate Authority in the
circumstances to take into consideration
the question of comparative hardship
due to facum of possession of one shop
by the landlords in vacant position
during pendency of suit proceedings.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. Landlords had filed an application
for release of the shop in dispute. Both the
Courts below have recorded a finding of
fact that the need of the landlords is
genuine and bona fide. Though the
Prescribed Authority has also gone into
the question of comparative hardship, its
finding on this issue, has been reversed by
the Appellate Court on the ground that
during the pendency of the appeal, one
shop of the landlords became vacant, as
such,
need
of
the
landlord
stood
extinguished.

3. The appellate Court failed to take
into consideration the fact that the tenant
has his own shop which is hardly 100
metres away from the shop, in dispute
where he has established his son in
business. The application of the petitioner
was moved under Section 21 (1)(a) of the
U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of
Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act). Once
the
tenant
acquired
an
alternative
accommodation in vacant possession and
established his son in business, question
of bona fide need and comparative
hardship would not relevant on the
analogy of Explanation (1) to Section
21(1)(a) of the Act. It was not open for
the
appellate
Authority
in
the
circumstances to take into consideration
1 All] Zamir Ahmad Khan and others V. A.D.J., Bulandshahr and others
143
the question of comparative hardship due
to facum of possession of one shop by the
landlords in vacant position during
pendency of suit proceedings.

4. For the reasons stated above, the
writ petition is allowed. Judgment and
order dated 24.7.2001 passed by the
respondent no. 1 (Annexure 7 to the writ
petition) is quashed. The respondent will
vacate the shop, in dispute, within a
month from today. In case, the shop is not
vacated by the respondent within the
stipulated period of one month from
today, the petitioner-landlord will be at
liberty to evict him with the aid of local
Police force. No order as to costs.
Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.08.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 72443 of 2005
Connected with
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39621 of 2006

The Committee of Management Vidya
Bhawan Inter College, Araul, Kanpur
Nagar and another
...Petitioners
Versus
The State of U.P. & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri R.K. Ojha
Sri Satyanshu Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ashok Khare
Sri S.K. Srivastava
S.C.

U.P. Intermediate Education Act 1921Section 16 (g) (1) read with U.P. Act No.
5
of
1982-Section
21-Suspension
pending
enquiry-Charges
of
embezzlement-management
send
proposal for approval-in the meantime
disciplinary
proceeding
concludedpunishment of dismissal-D.I.O.S. failed
to refer the matter to the secondary
Education
Services
selection
Boardhence writ petition by managementheld-after expiry of 60 days-suspension
order became inoperative-hence entitled
for salary during suspension period till
the final decision of Board.

Held: Para 21 & 22

In the facts of the case, there is no order
of
District
Inspector
of
Schools
approving
the
suspension
of
the
Principal of the institution. Consequently
the order of suspension passed by the
Committee of Management ceases to
exist in the eyes of law after expiry of 60
days of its being communicated and
therefore, the principal of the institution
becomes entitled for full salar for the
period subsequents to expiry of 60 days
form the date he was placed under
suspension. Accordingly it is provided
that the principal of the institution shall
be entitled to his full salary for the
period the order of suspension was nonexistent in the-eyes of law i.e. 28th
August, 2005 till the conclusion of the
proceedings
by
the
U.P.
Secondary
Education Services Selection Board as
directed herein above.

Till such decision by the U.P. Secondary
Education Services Selection Board as
aforesaid, the Principal of the institution
shall be entitled to his full salary, it shall
be
open
to
the
Committee
of
Management of the institution to take
work or not to take work of the post of
principal from the petitioner.
Case law discussed:
1995 (1) UPLBEC-460
1992 (2) UPLBEC-132
1994 (23) ALR-334