SUNIL KUMAR KATARIA Vs. SURAKSHA DEVI
LAWS(ALL)-2013-10-26
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on
October 11,2013
Sunil Kumar Kataria
Appellant
VERSUS
Suraksha Devi
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
SATYABADI BEHARA V. HIRABATI [REFERRED TO (CAL)]SHEIKH BUNDU V. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS [REFERRED TO]
HAJI MOHD. AMIN V. VIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS [REFERRED TO]
NAGUBAI AMMAL VS. B SNAMA RAO [REFERRED TO,]
L J LEACH AND CO LIMITED VS. JARDINE SKINNER AND CO [REFERRED TO]
WAMAN SHRINIWAS KINI VS. RATILAL BHAGWANDAS AND CO [REFERRED TO]
TRIMBAK DAMODHAR RAIPURKAR VS. ASSARAM HIRAMAN PATIL [REFERRED TO]
BALDEV DAS SHIVLAL VS. FILMISTAN DISTRIBUTORS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
LACHOO MAL VS. RADHEY SHYAM [REFERRED TO]
INDER MOHAN LAL VS. RAMESH KHANNA [REFERRED TO]
INDER MOHAN LAL VS. RAMESH KHANNA [REFERRED TO]
A R ANTULAY VS. R S NAYAK [REFERRED TO]
S P CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU VS. JAGANNATH [REFERRED TO,]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. D R LAXMI [REFERRED TO]
R RATHINAVEL CHETTIAR VS. V SIVARAMAN [REFERRED TO]
LAXMIDAS BAPUDAS DARBAR VS. RUDRAVVA [REFERRED TO]
LAXMIDAS BAPUDAS DARBAR VS. RUDRAVVA [REFERRED TO,]
DWARKA PRASAD AGARWAL VS. B D AGARWAL [REFERRED TO]
SULTAN SADIK VS. SANJAY RAJ SUBHA [REFERRED TO]
K VENKATACHALA BHAT VS. KRISHNA NAYAK [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH VS. NANHKU [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH KUMAR AGGARWAL VS. K K MODI [REFERRED TO]
M MEENAKSHI VS. METADIN AGARWAL [REFERRED TO]
ANDHRA BANK VS. ABN AMRO BANK N V [REFERRED TO]
PARAYYA ALLAYYA HITTALAMANI VS. PARAYYA GURULINGAYYA POOJARI [REFERRED TO]
USHA DEVI VS. RIJWAN AHAMD [REFERRED TO]
NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION GORAKHPUR VS. BHAGWAN DAS [REFERRED TO]
VIDYABAI VS. PADMALATHA [REFERRED TO,]
SURENDER KUMAR SHARMA VS. MAKHAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
J SAMUEL VS. GATTU MAHESH [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHKUMAR AGARWAL VS. RAJMALA EXPORTS PVT LTD [REFERRED TO]
RAJ NARAIN JAIN VS. FIRM SUKHA NAND RAM NARAIN [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL REHMAN VS. MOHD. RULDU [REFERRED TO]
CHOTESHA VS. MT. MAKTUM BI [REFERRED TO]
SUDHANGSHU KUMAR BANERJEE S/O LATE GOVIND CHANDRA BANERJEE VS. RADHEY CHARAN SHAN S/O LATE HANUMAN DAS AND PRABODH KUMAR BANERJEE S/O LATE GOVIND CHANDRA BANERJEE [REFERRED TO]
DR. PYARE LAL MISHRA VS. SRI BARE MAHADEVJI MAHRAJ [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This is a writ petition at the behest of the petitioner seeking quashing of the order dated 29.7.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Prescribed Authority in P.A. Case No.06 of 2011, Smt. Suraksha Devi Vs. Sunil Kumar Kataria.
(2.)The genesis of the case may be briefly encapsulated. The respondent filed an application under Section 21(1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act 13 of 1972) against the petitioner being P.A. Case No. 06 of 2011 for release of the shop in question. The petitioner-tenant file his written statement alleging that the application has been filed with a mala fide motive inasmuch as the respondent had several shop properties in Bijnor itself and therefore, there was no bonafide need for the shop in question. In the written statement, it was further alleged that earlier also the respondent had filed a similar P.A. Case No. 02 of 1999 under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act 13 of 1972 for release of the shop in question. The bonafide need as stated was that the son of the respondent, namely, Deepak Khurana was unemployed and married and needed the shop for his personal use. It was stated that the rent of the shop was Rs. 250 per month which was subsequently raised to Rs. 400 per month since November, 2000 and besides the parties had entered into a compromise that the rate of rent would thereafter be enhanced by 15% after every four years and 10 months and no alteration in the shop in question would be made. The compromise was stated to have been entered into on 17.1.2000 and in pursuance of this compromise between the same parties, the P. A. Case No. 02 of 1999 was decreed in terms of the compromise. This fact according to the petitioner, had not been disclosed by the respondent in her plant application and was brought on record for the first time in the written statement filed by the petitioner.
(3.)Subsequently, an amendment application under the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 CPC was filed on 20.9.2012, wherein, it has been stated that Deepak Khurana son of the respondent has one son named Vibhor Khurana, who was born on 5.7.2001 and one daughter who is about 7 years of age. The petitioner filed his objection to the amendment application on 31.1.2013 again stating that earlier the respondent had filed P.A. Case No. 02 of 1999, which had been decreed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties, wherein, the respondent had agreed that he would not file any application for release of the disputed shop. It was further submitted that the respondent owned several shops in Bijnor and the need of Deepak Khurana was not bonafide. The Prescribed Authority, however, by the impugned order dated 29.7.2013 has allowed the amendment application.
(2.)The genesis of the case may be briefly encapsulated. The respondent filed an application under Section 21(1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act 13 of 1972) against the petitioner being P.A. Case No. 06 of 2011 for release of the shop in question. The petitioner-tenant file his written statement alleging that the application has been filed with a mala fide motive inasmuch as the respondent had several shop properties in Bijnor itself and therefore, there was no bonafide need for the shop in question. In the written statement, it was further alleged that earlier also the respondent had filed a similar P.A. Case No. 02 of 1999 under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act 13 of 1972 for release of the shop in question. The bonafide need as stated was that the son of the respondent, namely, Deepak Khurana was unemployed and married and needed the shop for his personal use. It was stated that the rent of the shop was Rs. 250 per month which was subsequently raised to Rs. 400 per month since November, 2000 and besides the parties had entered into a compromise that the rate of rent would thereafter be enhanced by 15% after every four years and 10 months and no alteration in the shop in question would be made. The compromise was stated to have been entered into on 17.1.2000 and in pursuance of this compromise between the same parties, the P. A. Case No. 02 of 1999 was decreed in terms of the compromise. This fact according to the petitioner, had not been disclosed by the respondent in her plant application and was brought on record for the first time in the written statement filed by the petitioner.
(3.)Subsequently, an amendment application under the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 CPC was filed on 20.9.2012, wherein, it has been stated that Deepak Khurana son of the respondent has one son named Vibhor Khurana, who was born on 5.7.2001 and one daughter who is about 7 years of age. The petitioner filed his objection to the amendment application on 31.1.2013 again stating that earlier the respondent had filed P.A. Case No. 02 of 1999, which had been decreed in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties, wherein, the respondent had agreed that he would not file any application for release of the disputed shop. It was further submitted that the respondent owned several shops in Bijnor and the need of Deepak Khurana was not bonafide. The Prescribed Authority, however, by the impugned order dated 29.7.2013 has allowed the amendment application.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.