Court No. - 37
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20921 of 2018
Petitioner :- Sri Sohan Lal Verma
Respondent :- District Judge, Meerut And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Kiran Kumar Arora Counsel for Respondent :- Rajesh Gupta
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents Sri Rajesh Gupta.
The respondent's counsel did not pray for time for filing counter affidavit and made his submissions without it.
This writ petition has been filed by the tenant/petitioner against the judgement and order dated 12.1.2018 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Judge Small Cause, Meerut, in P.A. Case No. 23 of 2016 (Subhash Chand Singhal vs. Sohan Lal Verma) and the judgement and order dated 8.8.2018 passed by the District Judge Meerut in P.A. Appeal No. 53 of 2018 (Sohan Lal Verma vs. Subhash Chand Singhal).
Brief facts of the case are that the landlord respondent no. 2 filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of The U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, on 30.5.2016 stating that he was the owner/landlord of the accommodation in question and that it was required by him for his personal use. He had stated that he was a lawyer of some standing and that the accommodation was urgently required by him for his professional office. The petitioner filed his written statement/reply and stated that the landlord had more than ample accommodation to fulfill his needs. Further, he had stated that there was no bonafide need of the landlord for the accommodation from which he was seeking the ejectment of the petitioner. Still further, the tenant stated that the hardship that he would suffer would be much greater, if he would be evicted, than the hardship the landlord was facing without the accommodation in question.
The counsel for the tenant petitioner made the following submissions:-
I. The respondent no. 2 landlord did not require the accommodation in question and that the accommodation in his possession was more than sufficient to fullfil his personal/professional requirement.
II. The hardship that the tenant would face would be many times greater than the hardship, if at all, was there which was being faced by the landlord without the accommodation in question.
III. A mere desire to possess more accommodation could not be termed as a bonafide or genuine need.
IV. The Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority had decided the case against the tenant on the basis of surmises and junctures and, had allowed the landlord's application, on the basis of frivolous findings.
Learned counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that a lawyer's need to expand his office with the increase in his practice is always there and there could not be any better accommodation where he could spread out than his own accommodation. He further submitted that it did not lie in the mouth of the tenant to say that the requirement of the landlord was being fulfilled with the accommodation which he already had.
Learned counsel still further submitted that an extension of the office was always compulsory for a lawyer to expand his law practice. In this regard, he relied upon the following decisions:- 1992 (2) ARC 317 (Makalu (Since Deceased) vs. IV Additional District Judge and Ors.), 2001 (1) ARC 581 (Babu Singh vs. XIIIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar and another), 2005 (2) ARC 326 (Ram Swaroop (dead) through Lrs. vs. Mahesh Chandra Jain and others) and 2008 (2) ARC 745 (Luxmi Devi Bajpai (Smt.) vs. Kumar Woollen Mills through its partner and another) Learned counsel further submitted that the tenant had bought an LIG house in Shashtri Nagar, Meerut and that the same was only 30 yards away from the accommodation in question. Learned counsel for the landlord also submitted that the LIG house which the petitioner/tenant had in his possession had a room, a kitchen, latrine and also a bathroom.
Learned counsel further submitted that in addition to the LIG house which was situate around 30 yards away, the petitioner/tenant had taken another accommodation numbered as 22-23 Tanki Mohalla Arvindpuram, Sadar, Meerut Cantt. and, therefore, submitted that as per law also the petitioner/tenant should vacate the premises in question. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon 2007 (66) ALR 480(Jagdish Kumar vs. Ramesh Chandra Sharma) and 2014 (1) ARC 857 (Shri Naveen Kumar vs. A.D.J./F.T.C. Court No. 3 Meerut and others).
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after having gone through the record, I am of the definite view that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement. No court can dictate the landlord as to how and in what manner he should live. I am also of the definite view that when the petitioner was the owner of a property in Meerut itself then as per the provisions of Section 21 he definitely should be asked to vacate the premises. Further, the record does not reveal that the petitioner made any efforts to search out for an alternative accommodation for himself. In view of the clear finding of fact that there was a bonafide need of the landlord, the hardship, due to lack of space, which the landlord was suffering was definitely there. Still further, since I find that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner made any efforts to find out an alternative accommodation for himself, he definitely did not suffer from any hardship at all. The petition lacks merit and, therefore, is being dismissed.
However, having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, subject to filing of an undertaking by the tenant-petitioner before the Court below, it is provided that:
(1) The tenant-petitioner shall handover the peaceful possession of the premises in question to the landlord-opposite party on or before 4.10.2019.
(2) The tenant-petitioner shall file the undertaking before the Court below to the said effect within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order;
(3) The tenant-petitioner shall now pay Rs. 200/- per month to the landlord for the period for which he shall be in occupation as damages.
(4) In the undertaking the tenant/petitioner shall also state that he shall not create any interest in favour of any third party in the premises in dispute;
(5) Subject to filing of the said undertaking, the tenant/petitioner shall not be evicted from the premises in question till the aforesaid period;
(6) It is made clear that in case of default of any of the conditions mentioned herein-above, the protection granted by this Court shall stand vacated automatically.
In case the shop is not vacated as per the undertaking given by the petitioners, they shall also be liable for contempt.
Order Date :- 27.10.2018 praveen.
(Siddhartha Varma,J.)