Civil Appeal Nos. 7796-7797 of 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (c) Nos. 34694-34695 of 2013). Case: Krishna Kumar Rastogi Vs Sumitra Devi. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Civil Appeal Nos. 7796-7797 of 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (c) Nos. 34694-34695 of 2013) |
| Judges | Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ. |
| Issue | Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Sections 8, 21(1), 24, 34(8); Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 - Rule 16(2) |
| Judgement Date | August 20, 2014 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
Prafulla C. Pant, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 12th October, 2006 passed by the High Court of judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34997 of 2000 whereby the writ petition filed by the landlord has been dismissed, and the order dated 13th February, 2012 passed on Review Application No. 225618 of 2006, whereby the said application has also been rejected.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the present Appellant (landlord) filed an application Under Section 21(1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred as U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) against the Respondent Sumitra Devi (tenant) for release of the shop in question situated in Shivaji Market (Chhota Bazar), Shyohara, District Bijnor, before the Prescribed Authority/Addl. Civil Judge(Senior Division), Nagina. It is pleaded on behalf of the Appellant that the Respondent was tenant of the Appellant in the shop on rent @ Rs. 125/- per month. The Appellant further pleaded that he needed the shop in question to establish his son Amit Kumar in the business by opening a General Merchant Shop in it. It is also alleged by the Appellant that vide notice dated 11th March, 1985, the Appellant asked the Respondent to vacate the premises occupied by her as the same was required by the landlord/Appellant as above, and since the Respondent did not vacate the shop, the application for release of the shop was moved by the Appellant before the Prescribed Authority/Addl. Civil Judge (S.D.), Nagina.
4. The Respondent/tenant contested the application for release of the accommodation and denied the allegations contained in it. It is pleaded by her that she has three sons and four daughters apart from her husband in the family, and her hardship is more than that of the Appellant. It is further stated by her that the need of the Appellant is not genuine. It is further stated by her that the Respondent through her son sells shoes in the shop, and does not use the shop as store, as alleged by the Appellant. It is also alleged that the Appellant actually wants enhancement of rent, and the answering Respondent is ready to pay Rs. 300/- per month instead of Rs. 125/- per month as rent. It is also pointed out by the Respondent in her pleading that earlier suit No. 198 of 1980 (Krishna Kumar v. Sumitra Devi) was instituted by the Appellant for vacation of the shop, and when he failed in it, the present proceeding has been drawn.
5. By way of amendment on 11th August, 1995 Respondent further took the plea that during the pendency of the proceedings, Jayanti Prasad, brother of the Appellant had filed proceedings No. 6 of 1987 against Chaturpal Gupta-husband of the Respondent on personal ground of necessity and said application has been allowed against which the appeal is pending. Lastly, it is pleaded by the Respondent that the Respondent has attempted to search another shop but the same was not available near the disputed shop.
6. In reply to the amended plea of the Respondent, the Appellant pleaded that even if the application of...
To continue reading
Request your trial