Court No. - 26
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2760 of 2018 Petitioner :- Madan Lal Jain Respondent :- Atul Bansal And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rishi Chadha Counsel for Respondent :- Prem Chand Jain
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court to set aside the order dated 21.03.2018 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.5, Agra in P.A. Case No. 45 of 2014 and to issue a suitable direction to the learned Court below to allow the application of the petitioner ( paper no. 57-Ga) and to appoint a Board of Expert Medical Doctors for testing the mental capacity of Sri Mudit Bansal and to submit a report to the learned Court below.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the landlord/respondent had filed application for release of the shop in question rented by the tenant/petitioner by showing bona fide need to set up their only son in an independent business.
In the written statement, the tenant/petitioner had pleaded that the applicant i.e. the landlord/respondent is a billionaire having several shops and industries already running and several godowns available with him as also shops and the bona fide need set up by the plaintiff landlord/respondent is not genuine at all. Mudit Bansal is physically and mentally challenged and unfit to do any business and is not in a position to even ascertain the amount of money if a bundle of assorted currency is handed over to him. He cannot even walk independently on his own and needs assistance. There are others to look after his daily needs. His general constitution is very week and his wife had left him immediately after marriage and a divorce petition is pending. Since he has no control over his muscles and suffers from a speech problem as well, he is not in a position to either manage or supervise over his business. Since Mudit Bansal has not filed any affidavit before the learned Court below and had not even appeared in Court to make any statement, an application was filed by the tenant/petitioner for appointing a board of medical doctors of Agra Mental Hospital to ascertain the mental capacity of Sri Mudit Bansal and to submit a report to the Court. This application registered as paper no. 57 Ga has been rejected by the impugned order dated 21.03.2018.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the only son of the landlord/respondent is mentally and physically challenged, he cannot run any independent business and, therefore, the need for setting him up in an independent business as shown in the release application is fictitious and, therefore, is liable to be rejected. Since there was no material before the learned Court below to ascertain the capacity of such a person and the rights of the parties were dependent upon the determination of bona fide need of such a person to set up an independent business, the prescribed authority for the purpose of holding an inquiry into the mental and physical capacity of Mudit Bansal ought to have allowed the application of the petitioner. Instead, it was summarily rejected.
Learned counsel for the respondent/landlord while opposing such submission of learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out paragraph no. 3 of the release application submitted by landlord/respondent before prescribed authority. It says clearly that the godown adjoining the business of the landlord/respondent run in the name of 'M/s. Sriram Agro' relating to agricultural equipments is very suitably located for setting a business of Mudit Bansal. The shop was required for independent and permanent settlement of the son. Learned counsel for the respondent has also pointed out paragraph 23 of the written statement filed by the petitioner/tenant wherein allegations were made by the petitioner/tenant that Mudit Bansal being mentally and physically incapable to manage his own personal affairs, his wife had left him immediately after his marriage and that he sometimes accompanies his father, the landlord/respondent Atul Bansal to his business place of manufacturing and trading for a few hours to pass time with the help of some domestic servant otherwise he always remains at home in the care of his mother. Such a son is incompetent to do any business as he is not capable of speaking or even reading or writing or understanding abc of any business.
I have heard learned counsel for the respondent who says that the only aim of the tenant/petitioner is to somehow hold on to the property in question which is a godown adjoining the already running business of landlord/respondent and for such an aim, the petitioner/tenant was willing to go to any extent, including to give any statement that the son of the landlord/respondent was mentally and physically challenged to such an extent as to being incapable of doing anything at all.
Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that it is all the more required that such a physically and mentally challenged person has some business which he can call his own. Although such business does not require to be run by Sri Mudit Bansal in his personal capacity, it can be run by his agents and employees trustworthy enough to help him out.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and perused the order impugned dated 21.01.2018.
The learned Court below while rejecting the application No. 57Ga has observed that sufficient time had been given to the petitioner/tenant to flesh out his pleadings made in the written statement regarding incapacity of Sri Mudit Bansal to run any business. Moreover, only because a person is physically and mentally challenged, it cannot be presumed that he has no right to run any independent business. Moreover, rent control cases before the prescribed authority are cases of summary nature and only bona fide need has to be established in relation to comparative hardship of the tenant by the landlord. If the landlord is unable to establish such bona fide need through affidavit and evidence already on the file, then his release application shall automatically stand rejected.
In such case, there was no requirement that a medical board should be established to declare the mental and physical capacity of the son of the landlord.
I do not find any factual or legal infirmity in the order impugned.
Writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.4.2018 Madhurima