Chhote Lal Nishad (D) vs Ravinder Kumar Srivastava

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6475 OF 2008

CHHOTE LAL NISHAD (D) Appellant(s)

VERSUS

RAVINDER KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

1. This appeal arises out of the impugned order

passed by the High Court of judicature at Allahabad

in Writ Petition No. 11 of 2007 (R/C) dated

05.02.2007 in and by which, the High Court has set

aside the order passed by the Rent Control Authority

as well as by the Appellate Authority, dismissing the

Eviction Petition filed by the respondent-landlord.

2. The respondent-landlord, a practising advocate,

filed an eviction suit, being Suit No. 2 of 2000 and

the same was dismissed by the Rent Control/Eviction

Officer by order dated 09.01.2001. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by JAYANT KUMAR ARORA Date: 2017.04.11 15:30:02 IST Reason:

3. Being aggrieved, the respondent-landlord filed

Civil Revision Petition No. 24 of 2001 before the

Additional District Magistrate against the order 2

dated 09.01.2001, which also came to be dismissed on

08.02.2002.

4. Being aggrieved, the respondent-landlord took the

matter to the High Court in Writ Petition No. 11 of

2007 (R/C).

5. In the writ petition, the High Court quashed the

impugned order passed by the District Judge, Faizabad

dated 04.05.1998 as well as the orders passed by the

Rent Controller and allowed the writ petition,

holding that the courts below ignored the fact and

evidence that the landlord bonafide requires the

house for himself and his family members and for his

legal profession. Though the High Court allowed the

writ petition, the High Court granted liberty to the

respondent-landlord to file a fresh application

before the Rent Control Officer, Faizabad or any

other duly authorised officer by the District

Magistrate, Faizabad, highlighting all the

facts/details of family members, his legal practice

etc. and issued further direction to the Rent Control

Officer.

6. We may usefully extract the impugned order of the

High Court, which reads as under :- 3

“This Court has appreciated the bonafide need of a lawyer in various judgments as reported in 1995 (1) ARC 200, Surjan Sing Vs. IX A.D.J. Kapur (Para6), 1984(2) ARC 548, Prem Nath Bhatia Vs. Munsi Lal Nigam and others (Para 8) and 1993(1) ARC 362, Shobha Ram and others vs. VII Additional District Judge, Deoria. The learned court below ought to have taken into consideration the landlords' status, number of members of the family and arrival and entertainment of guests, relatives and clients, etc. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in (2005) 8 SCC 252, Sait Nagjee Purshotham & Co. Ltd.

Vs. Vimalabai Prabhulal and others and JT 1996(6) SC 468 Mrs. Meenal Eknath Kshisagar Vs. M/s Traders & Agencies and others as also a decision of this Court as reported in 1988 AWC 1063 Cappanal Vs. A. D. J. Moradabad, the bona fide and genuine need of landlord cannot be ignored.

In view of above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the District Judge, Faizabad on 04.05.1998 and the rent control authorities' orders are quashed. The Petitioner is directed to file a fresh application before the Rent Control Officer, Faizabad or other competent authority duly authorised by the District Magistrate, Faizabad 4

highlighing all the facts/details of family members, his legal practice etc. On receiving such an application, the Rent Control Officer shall dispose of the same by passing appropriate orders after following due procedure as provided under the act No. XIII of 1972 and after giving opportunity of hearing to the present tenant. The Petitioner is expected to place all the cases cited in this judgment and the decisions given by this court as reported in 2005-2006 Allahabad Rent Cases. This exercise shall be completed within three months of filing of release application before the Rent Control Officer, competent authority etc. along with Judgment of this court.”

7. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the High

Court, the appellant-tenant is before this Court.

The only contention urged by the learned counsel for

the appellant-tenant is that, while quashing the

orders passed by the District Judge as well as the

Rent Controller, the High Court had not chosen to

issue notice to the appellant-tenant and the High

Court, while setting aside the orders, ought to have

issued notice to the tenant.

8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in

the light of the order passed by the High Court, we 5

do not think that the contention of the

appellant-tenant merits acceptance. The High Court

has, while setting aside the orders passed by the

District Judge as well as the Rent Controller, only

granted liberty to the respondent-landlord to file

fresh application setting out all the

grounds/requirements. By the impugned order passed

by the High Court, in our view, no prejudice has been

caused to the appellant-tenant as the eviction

application to be filed by the respondent-landlord

will be proceeded denovo.

9. The appeal is dismissed.

.......................J. [ R. BANUMATHI ]

.......................J. [ SANJAY KISHAN KAUL ]

New Delhi;

April 05, 2017.

6

ITEM NO.103 COURT NO.6 SECTION XI

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No(s). 6475/2008

CHHOTE LAL NISHAD (D) Appellant(s)

VERSUS

RAVINDER KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Respondent(s)

(with appln. (s) for substitution and exemption from filing O.T. and c/delay in filing substitution and setting aside abatement and office report)

Date : 05/04/2017 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

For Appellant(s) Mr. Madhu Mukul Tripathi, Adv.

For Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Application for setting aside abatement is allowed.

Delay in filing the application for substitution is condoned

and the application for substitution is allowed.

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed

non-reportable Judgment.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed

of.

(Jayant Kumar Arora) (Suman Jain) Court Master Court Master

(Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)