RAMESH CHANDRA Vs. BANARSI DAS
LAWS(ALL)-1991-7-100
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on July 15,1991

RAMESH CHANDRA Appellant
VERSUS
BANARSI DAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.P.Singh, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was the tenant of shop No. 6/287/3 and 6/287/4, Behat Road, Saharanpur. The landlords filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) and (b) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for release of both the shops.
(2.) THE case set up by the landlords was that the petitioner was a tenant at the rate of Rs. 25/ - per month. The building in which the said two shops were situate was in a dilapidated condition. It required demolition and new construction. The said building on account of its decayed condition has become unsafe. Cracks had developed in the roof and beam of the building. The building in question has become extremely dangerous to the adjoining buildings and to the passersby. It has become a danger to human life. They had sufficient financial capacity for the proposed demolition and new construction. The plan of the proposed building has been sanctioned. The proper estimate of expenditure for the proposed demolition and new construction has also been shown. In addition to the building being in a dilapidated condition, the landlord has come forward with his "need as contemplated by Section 21(1)(a) of the Act stating this his son Ashwani Kumar, needed both the shops to carry on his independent business of Bardana. The tenant and his family members have several non -residential building within the same city. He can shift his business. The landlords have no other suitable place to set up Ashwani Kumar in business. The need was bona fide and genuine. It has also been stated that after the shop is released, the same would not be let out or transferred to anybody else.
(3.) THE petitioner contested the release application. It was denied that the building was in a dilapidated condition and needed demolition and new construction. The building' was in extremely good condition. The need set up was not a bona fide one. The provisions of Rule 17 of the Rules framed under the Act have not been complied with. The application under Section 21(1)(b) of the Act was not maintainable.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.