It was held that, there exists a relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties in relation to the suit house the appellants need for carrying on their business operation is bona fide and the appellants do require the suit house to carry on their business in the suit house.
Against the said order, the appellants filed the review application before the High Court, which was also dismissed.
The respondent felt aggrieved by the said order and carried the matter to the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
By order dated 30.05.2014, the District Judge dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Prescribed Authority.
Review Application No.
The appellants applicantslandlord have felt aggrieved by the orders of the High Court in appeal and the review and filed these appeals by way of special leave in this Court.
The respondent then pointed out that the appellants also have their own one shop in the city, which is still lying vacant and, therefore, the appellants can accomplish their need by using the said shop.
The High Court allowed the writ appeal mainly on the ground that the application filed by the appellants under Section 21 1 a of the Act, 1972 was number maintainable.
away from the suit house.
The respondent felt aggrieved by the said order and filed appeal Rent Control Appeal No.52/2013 before the District Judge, Allahabad.
By impugned order, the Single Judge of High Court allowed the writ appeal and set aside the orders of the Appellate Court and Prescribed Authority and dismissed the appellants application filed under Section 21 1 a of the Act, 1972.
18/15, Hastings Road 1/5 Nyay Marg , Tandon Quarters, Allahabad hereinafter referred to as suit house .
The appellants alleged that they have numberother suitable accommodation of their own in the city where they can do their business and hence the application in question seeking release of the suit house for their personal bona fide need.
The respondent filed his reply.
The appellants are the owners and the landlord of the House No.
The High Court, therefore, did number examine the findings of the two Courts below on merits, which were answered in appellants favour.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are companystrained to allow the appeals, set aside the impugned order and restore the orders of the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Court District Judge .
The appellants filed an application P.A. No.20/2011 before the Prescribed Authority under Section 21 1 a of the Act, 1972 against the respondent tenant seeking his eviction from the suit house.
Heard Mr. Avi Tandon, learned companynsel for the appellants and Mr. Nitin Bhardwaj, learned companynsel for the respondent.
The eviction was sought on the ground of the appellants bona fide need for doing and companytinuing with their business operations in the suit house.
32311 of 2014.
275082 of 2016 in Writ Appeal No.
It was also held that the place pointed out by the respondent where the appellants companyld carry on their business operation was number sufficient and, therefore, the respondent was liable to be evicted from the suit house to enable the appellants to do and carry on their business operations in the suit house.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
The Prescribed Authority, by order dated 10.01.2013, allowed the application.
A few relevant facts need mention hereinbelow to appreciate the short companytroversy involved in these appeals.
These appeals are filed against the final judgment and order dated 03.08.2016 passed by Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Date 2019.02.07 162028 IST Reason Appeal No.32311 of 2014 and the order dated 24.03.2017 in Civil Misc.
They have let out the suit house to the respondent as their tenant on monthly rent.
The appellants are the applicants and the respondent is the opposite party in the application filed by the appellants herein under Section 21 1 a of the U.P. Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction Act, 1972 hereinafter referred to as The Act, 1972 before the Prescribed Authority, Allahabad.
The respondent, however, admitted that the appellants are carrying on their business operations in the place pointed out by them but, according to him, they were number paying any rent for use and occupation of the said place to its owners because the owners of the said house were in relation with them.
The appellants alleged inter alia that presently they are carrying on their business operations in a tenanted premises, which is hardly 5060 mtr.
