SARDAR KULDEEP SINGH Vs. LEARNED ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE COURT NO 4 SULTANPUR & ORS
LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-378
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on May 08,2015

SARDAR KULDEEP SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
Learned Additional Session Judge Court No 4 Sultanpur And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no.3 and perused the record.
(2.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the prayer to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the judgement and order dated 19.07.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sultanpur as well as the order and decree dated 30.11.2012 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Prescribed Authority, District Sultanpur.
(3.) THE brief facts of the case are that the opposite party no.3, who is the landlord, filed an application for release under section 21(1) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 on the basis of personal need for the treatment of his father; his daughter; as well as on the ground of personal requirement for establishing his Lawyers Chamber. The petitioners -tenant controverted the facts of the plaint stating that the petitioners have no other house for residential purposes and the landlord has no bonafide need for residential/official purposes. After considering the evidence of both the parties, the learned Prescribed Authority came to the conclusion that there was relationship of landlord and tenancy between the parties and the landlord has been able to prove his bonafide need. The learned Prescribed Authority also came to the conclusion that by rejecting the application, the landlord shall suffer the comparative hardships and accordingly, allowed the application vide judgement and order dated 30.11.2012. The said order dated 30.11.2012 was challenged by way of Rent Appeal no.01 of 2013 before the learned Additional District Judge, Sultanpur who after considering the respective submissions as well as the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the appellant -tenant has not made any efforts since 1996 to search for alternative accommodation, while the landlord, who was the Advocate of Commercial Tax and Income Tax, requires the said premises for establishing his Chamber. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed by the judgement and order dated 19.07.2013. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed.;


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