NANDANI DEVI SMT Vs. IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
LAWS(ALL)-2004-9-237
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on September 02,2004

NANDANI DEVI (SMT.) Appellant
VERSUS
IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

SARJU PRASAD VS. VIIITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(ALL)-2006-7-254] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NARAIN VS. IIIRD ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2007-1-213] [REFERRED TO]
DEEN DAYAL (DECEASED) AND ANOTHER VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BIJNOR AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2005-3-319] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH CHANDRA VS. RITESH BHARGAWA [LAWS(ALL)-2020-8-20] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S.U. Khan, J. - (1.)Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This is landlord's writ petition arising out of eviction/release proceedings by him against tenants respondents on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
(2.)Property in dispute is a shop. Release application was registered as P.A. Case No. 36 of 1978 on the file of prescribed authority/1st Additional Munsif, Varanasi, The landlady petitioner pleaded that she required the shop in dispute for establishing his sons in business. Prescribed authority by order dated 12.4.1982 allowed the release application, against which tenants respondents filed appeal under Section 22 of the Act being Rent Control Appeal No. 239 of 1982. 1st Additional District Judge, Varanasi through judgment and order dated 30.11.1983 allowed the appeal, hence, this writ petition by landlady.
(3.)Landlady had specifically stated that her sons intend to start the business of Swarnkari. The Appellate Court mainly allowed the appeal on the ground that Swarnkari business was family business of landlady's husband hence it should be presumed that her sons Jugal Kishore and Mangesh Kumar might be intending to take the orders and manufacture the ornaments themselves. The Appellate Court also held that landlady did not show as to how many shops were owned by her husband. If the tenants come up with the case that landlord has got other alternative accommodation available then the burden to prove the same lies upon them. Appellate Court also observed that landlady did not state as to whether her sons were separate in business and living or not. Lower Appellate Court further held that "These young sons Jugal Kishore and Mangesh Kumar may continue to work with their father and assist their father in this sarrafa business". This view is quite contrary to the view expressed in this regard by Supreme Court in the following authorities: 1. Akhilesh Kumar and Ors. v. Mustaquim and Ors., AIR 2003 SC 532: 2003 SCFBRC 137. 2. Sushila v. IInd Additional District Judge, Banda and Ors., 2003 SCFBRC 109


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