SUSHILA Vs. IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE BANDA
LAWS(SC)-2002-12-46
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
December 17,2002
SUSHILA
Appellant
VERSUS
IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,BANDA
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
RAJENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL VS. VI ADDL. & SESSIONS JUDGE, LUCKNOW [LAWS(ALL)-2013-12-4] [REFERRED TO]MAHENDRA PAL AND ANOTHER VS. VIIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ALIGARH AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2006-1-293] [REFERRED TO]
PRAGI RAM VS. SUKH NANDAN AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2006-2-319] [REFERRED TO]
RAJARAM AND OTHERS VS. IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, FARRUKHABAD AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2006-3-362] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. KASTOORI DEVI VS. IXTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, VARANASI AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2006-3-388] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KUMAR BARNWAL VS. RAM LAKHAN [LAWS(ALL)-2008-8-22] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHANDRA AGRAWAL VS. BHARAT PRESS [LAWS(ALL)-2009-10-53] [REFERRED TO]
ONKAR NATH GUPTA AND OTHERS VS. IXTH A.D.J., KANPUR NAGAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2006-7-289] [REFERRED TO]
JAMEEL AHMAD AND ORS. VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE/ SPECIAL JUDGE (SC/ST)ACT & ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-2-243] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL DASS GOGIA VS. SHASHI PRABHA [LAWS(DLH)-2014-9-57] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAMA DEVI VS. IX ADDL DISTT JUDGE VARANASI [LAWS(ALL)-2006-2-103] [REFERRED TO]
KAFEEL AHMAD VS. SATVINDRA KAUR [LAWS(ALL)-2006-1-70] [REFERRED TO]
AJIT VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BULANDSHAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2007-9-247] [REFERRED TO]
MUNNA LAL VS. IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE/FAST TRACK COURT JALAUN AT ORAI [LAWS(ALL)-2008-10-37] [REFERRED TO]
MAGAN LAL VS. KALIM ULLAH [LAWS(ALL)-2012-10-18] [REFERRED TO]
PRAHLAD KUMAR SAHU VS. SHIV PRASAD [LAWS(ALL)-2013-12-151] [REFERRED TO]
KEDAR NATH AND ANOTHER VS. IIIRD A.D.J. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2005-10-238] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMAN SAV VS. A D J COURT NO VI [LAWS(ALL)-2005-5-20] [REFERRED TO]
(SMT.) TAHMINA HABIB VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE (E.C. ACT), BANDA AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2005-5-362] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH KAUR VS. III RD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE DAHRADUN [LAWS(ALL)-2006-9-28] [REFERRED TO]
(SMT.) KELAWATI VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2006-3-309] [REFERRED TO]
BACHHU LAL VS. IXTH ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE KANPUR NAGAR [LAWS(ALL)-2006-4-103] [REFERRED TO]
MAHABIR PRASAD VS. SRI JAI DAYAL DALMIA AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2006-7-299] [REFERRED TO]
JAI RAM GUPTA VS. JAI RAM VERMA [LAWS(ALL)-2008-10-50] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM BAHADUR GUPTA VS. JAI HIND PRAKASH GOEL [LAWS(ALL)-2008-9-314] [REFERRED TO]
WEST WATCH COMPANY VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-3-22] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVCHARAN VS. SMT. CHANDRAKANTA AND ORS. [LAWS(UTN)-2007-2-47] [REFERRED TO]
RISHI KUMAR GOVIL VS. MAQSOODAN [LAWS(SC)-2007-3-107] [REFERRED TO]
GANGA DEVI VS. DISTT JUDGE NAINITAL [LAWS(SC)-2008-5-143] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVRAM VS. RAJENDRA KUMAR [LAWS(ALL)-2013-5-81] [REFERRED TO]
ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE PRIVATE LIMITED VS. ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE ROOM NO. 13 [LAWS(ALL)-2014-7-325] [REFERRED TO]
NAVEEN CHAND SHARMA VS. RAM BABU [LAWS(ALL)-2022-1-107] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH GUPTA VS. ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE/FAST TRACK COURT-II DEHRADUN [LAWS(ALL)-2006-8-138] [REFERRED TO]
FIRM BAIJ NATH PRASAD JAMUNA PRASAD (M/S.) VS. VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ALLAHABAD AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2004-10-217] [REFERRED TO]
NANDANI DEVI SMT VS. IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-2004-9-237] [REFERRED TO]
KAFEEL AHMAD VS. SATVINDRA KAUR [LAWS(ALL)-2005-1-59] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SEVAK VS. SPECIAL JUDGE (ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT), JHANSI [LAWS(ALL)-2005-11-255] [REFERRED TO]
KANAHAIYA LAL AGARWAL VS. DISTRICT JUDGE BALLIA [LAWS(ALL)-2008-10-64] [REFERRED TO]
SHUSHILA DEVI VS. SPECIAL JUDGE E.C.ACT/ ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE LKO. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-1-51] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KUMAR YADAV VS. AFTAB ALAM [LAWS(ALL)-2014-3-252] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. PRAKASH KAUR VS. IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS. [LAWS(UTN)-2006-9-55] [REFERRED TO]
MADANLAL GANDHI VS. BHOPAL WHOLESALE CONSUMERS CO-OPERATIVE STORES LTD. [LAWS(MPH)-2004-8-107] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA KUMAR KHANNA VS. MANISH CHHATWAL [LAWS(ALL)-2008-10-72] [REFERRED TO]
SWARAJ KUMAR VS. ARVIND KUMAR [LAWS(ALL)-2008-9-60] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SEVAK VS. IIIRD. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, JAUNPUR AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2006-3-306] [REFERRED TO]
MAHMOOD HUSSEIN VS. VITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BAREILLY AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2004-10-215] [REFERRED TO]
IQBAL AHMAD VS. IIND A D J [LAWS(ALL)-2004-8-36] [REFERRED TO]
VISHNU KANT GOSWAMI VS. IIND A D J , ALLAHABAD AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2005-12-338] [REFERRED]
MAN MOHAN DASS VS. AJAY TYAGI [LAWS(DLH)-2014-2-397] [REFERRED TO]
PREM NARAYAN SHUKLA @ RAJA SHUKLA VS. ARVIND MISHRA [LAWS(ALL)-2019-4-130] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH KUMAR VS. SRI BISHAN KUMAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(UTN)-2017-1-17] [REFERRED TO]
PITAMBAR DATT PANDEY VS. SPECIAL JUDGE AND ORS. [LAWS(UTN)-2004-8-94] [REFERRED TO]
PRITAM SINGH VS. IIND FAST TRACK COURT AND ORS. [LAWS(UTN)-2004-9-50] [REFERRED TO]
ASHWARYA LAL VS. SATYA PRASAD [LAWS(UTN)-2004-9-57] [REFERRED TO]
JANKI PRASAD SHARMA S/O SRI MEVA LAL VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE COURT NO. 2 BARABANKI AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2015-12-306] [REFERRED TO]
JANKI PRASAD SHARMA S/O SRI MEVA LAL VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE COURT NO. 2 BARABANKI AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2015-12-306] [REFERRED TO]
JANKI PRASAD SHARMA VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE COURT NO. 2 BARABANKI AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-10-119] [REFERRED TO]
JANKI PRASAD SHARMA VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE COURT NO. 2 BARABANKI AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-10-119] [REFERRED TO]
INDERJIT VS. MAHESH GUPTA [LAWS(P&H)-2006-12-24] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA VS. IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS. [LAWS(UTN)-2006-8-76] [REFERRED TO]
PUSPA RANI DEY VS. ASHISH DASGUPTA [LAWS(TRIP)-2019-1-11] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM SUNDAR KATARIA VS. SUMIT GROVER [LAWS(UTN)-2022-1-32] [REFERRED TO]
GOPAL LAL BHALLA VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE LUCKNOW [LAWS(ALL)-2011-3-41] [REFERRED TO]
NIZAMUDDIN KHAN DEAD THROUGH LRS VS. IIIRD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE BAHRAICH [LAWS(ALL)-2011-3-276] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAN DAS RAMESH KUMAR VS. JAGABANDHU DHAR [LAWS(GAU)-2005-9-68] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA VS. IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE UDHAM SINGH NAGAR [LAWS(ALL)-2006-8-210] [REFERRED TO]
GIRDHARI AND OTHERS VS. IIIRD A.D.J., MATHURA AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2006-3-348] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH NARAIN VS. VIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GHAZIABAD AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2006-4-330] [REFERRED TO]
KAUSHAL KUMAR GUPTA VS. BISHUN PRASAD AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2005-11-281] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR SRIVASTAVA VS. VIRENDRA KUMAR ARYA [LAWS(ALL)-2008-12-64] [REFERRED TO]
SHAUKAT ALI VS. VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE KANPUR NAGAR [LAWS(ALL)-2008-9-14] [REFERRED TO]
GEETA SHUKLA VS. DISTRICT JUDGE UNNAO [LAWS(ALL)-2022-5-221] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA KUMAR VS. YATINDRA NATH GUPTA [LAWS(ALL)-2007-7-192] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH AND OTHERS VS. HAMENDRA KUMAR AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2007-9-276] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVCHARAN VS. CHANDRAKANTA [LAWS(ALL)-2007-2-193] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHANDRA VS. XIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE MORADABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2008-9-34] [REFERRED TO]
BECHCHU LAL VS. IXTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE CIVIL JUDGE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY RENT AND BAIJ [LAWS(ALL)-2006-5-231] [REFERRED TO]
SITAPUR EYE HOSPITAL VS. DISTRICT JUDGE ALMORA [LAWS(ALL)-2006-8-182] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI GANDHI ASHRAM KHADI BHANDAR AND ANR. AND AJIT KUMAR JAIN VS. XIX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2010-7-378] [REFERRED TO]
K GOPAL VS. SUDARSHAN DEVI BHATIA [LAWS(ALL)-2012-4-169] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHANDRA VS. SATYA PRASAD [LAWS(UTN)-2004-9-65] [REFERRED TO]
MUNNI SAH (SMT.) AND OTHERS VS. DISTRICT JUDGE, NAINITAL AND OTHERS [LAWS(UTN)-2006-10-34] [REFERRED TO]
DERRIK HARALD EDWARDS VS. ADDL. DIST. JUDGE [LAWS(UTN)-2007-3-9] [REFERRED TO]
RAJNI ARORA VS. KRISHNA DEVI [LAWS(P&H)-2011-8-86] [REFERRED TO]
RAJINDER PARSHAD DOGRA VS. RAJ KUMAR KATARIA [LAWS(HPH)-2013-7-64] [REFERRED TO]
HARISH BHATIA VS. JOHRA BEGUM [LAWS(ALL)-2008-2-256] [REFERRED TO]
JAI KISHAN PRASAD KHANDELWAL CHHOTEY LAL GUPTA VS. VIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE DAU DAYAL SHANKER LAL [LAWS(ALL)-2005-10-3] [REFERRED TO]
JAGANNATH BHATIA VS. MADAN LAL AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2006-8-378] [REFERRED TO]
VISHNU KANT GOSWAMI VS. IIND ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2006-12-145] [REFERRED TO]
KAMAL AHMAD VS. ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, COURT NO. 1, FAIZABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2013-9-233] [REFERRED TO]
DR. NAND KISHORE DABRAL VS. DISTRICT JUDGE AND ANR. [LAWS(UTN)-2004-7-48] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA SINGH BEDI VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE/FAST TRACK COURT IV HARIDWAR AND OTHERS [LAWS(UTN)-2004-9-66] [REFERRED TO]
SH. SHYAM SUNDAR KATARIA VS. SH. SUMIT GROVER [LAWS(UTN)-2022-1-25] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Brijesh Kumar, J. -
(1.)The dispute in this appeal relates to a shop under the tenancy of the respondent-Baij Nath. The petitioner landlady had purchased the shop in question in the year 1977 from one Smt. Kanti Devi. It measures 2 x 5.3 meters. The petitioner moved a petition under S. 21(1)(a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the Act) on the ground of bona fide need to settle her major and married son in life, who was to start the business of electrical goods and utensils in the shop in question. The petition was contested unsuccessfully by the respondent-Baij Nath. The appeal preferred by the tenant-respondent was, however, allowed. The writ petition filed by the petitioner in the High Court was dismissed upholding the order of reversal passed in appeal, observing that under the writ jurisdiction findings of fact cannot be disturbed unless they are manifestly unjust. Hence, this appeal impugning the order of the High Court.
(2.)The appellant-landlady, as noted earlier, had purchased the disputed shop in August, 1977, when her children were not grown up. Her eldest son Prem Prakash was later married and had also passed some electrical certificate course from I. T. I., Banda but he remained unemployed. It was thus necessary to get the shop vacated for her son to start his own business in electrical goods and utensils. It may be mentioned here that there is another shop adjacent to the shop in question which too was purchased at the same time i.e. in the year 1977 by her husband who is carrying on his work as Goldsmith and money-lending business in that shop. She had also come forward with a case that her relations with her husband have not been cordial but it has not been accepted by the courts below. The shop in question was initially in the tenancy of Mool Chand, father of the respondent Baij Nath who was carrying on kirana business in the said shop. After the death of Mool Chand, Baij Nath started the business in that shop. According to the respondent it was not correct that shop in question was needed by the landlady. It has also been his case that at the time of the purchase of the shop in question petitioner knew that it was in occupation of the tenant. It was also alleged that husband of the appellant had purchased yet another shop in Chowk Bazar in the name of his brother-in-law Khunni; it has however, not been found proved by the Courts.
(3.)According to the petitioner-landlady Baij Nath-the tenant has a shop in Gursahai Road as well as another shop in Chowk Bazar which was purchased by him. In so far the shop in Gursahai Road is concerned, according to the respondent, prior to the death of his father Mool Chand he himself had been running his shop in Gursahai Road but after the death of Mool Chand he started his business in the shop in question and he established his son Rajendra Kumar in the shop in Gursahai Road. In regard to the other shop, his case is that it is a residential house and not a shop but it has not been accepted by the Prescribed Authority. It has also been found that the said shop is quite near to the shop in question. Considering all the facts and circumstances, the trial Court allowed the petition with a finding that the landlady had bona fide need which was more pressing as compared to that of the tenant and thus ordered for his eviction.
(2.)The appellant-landlady, as noted earlier, had purchased the disputed shop in August, 1977, when her children were not grown up. Her eldest son Prem Prakash was later married and had also passed some electrical certificate course from I. T. I., Banda but he remained unemployed. It was thus necessary to get the shop vacated for her son to start his own business in electrical goods and utensils. It may be mentioned here that there is another shop adjacent to the shop in question which too was purchased at the same time i.e. in the year 1977 by her husband who is carrying on his work as Goldsmith and money-lending business in that shop. She had also come forward with a case that her relations with her husband have not been cordial but it has not been accepted by the courts below. The shop in question was initially in the tenancy of Mool Chand, father of the respondent Baij Nath who was carrying on kirana business in the said shop. After the death of Mool Chand, Baij Nath started the business in that shop. According to the respondent it was not correct that shop in question was needed by the landlady. It has also been his case that at the time of the purchase of the shop in question petitioner knew that it was in occupation of the tenant. It was also alleged that husband of the appellant had purchased yet another shop in Chowk Bazar in the name of his brother-in-law Khunni; it has however, not been found proved by the Courts.
(3.)According to the petitioner-landlady Baij Nath-the tenant has a shop in Gursahai Road as well as another shop in Chowk Bazar which was purchased by him. In so far the shop in Gursahai Road is concerned, according to the respondent, prior to the death of his father Mool Chand he himself had been running his shop in Gursahai Road but after the death of Mool Chand he started his business in the shop in question and he established his son Rajendra Kumar in the shop in Gursahai Road. In regard to the other shop, his case is that it is a residential house and not a shop but it has not been accepted by the Prescribed Authority. It has also been found that the said shop is quite near to the shop in question. Considering all the facts and circumstances, the trial Court allowed the petition with a finding that the landlady had bona fide need which was more pressing as compared to that of the tenant and thus ordered for his eviction.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.