The Uttarakhand High Court ruled that no interference can be made by the Court when there is no evidence to show that the tenant has searched for an alternative residence after the service of notice on 28 January, 2022 in the case of Sh. Shyam Sundar Kataria v. Sh. Sumit Grover And Another in the judgement delivered by Hon’ble Justice Sharad Kumar.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The property in dispute is a shop that has been occupied by the tenant, that is, the petitioner for more than 28 years and with a monthly rent of Rs. 450. The petitioner made the claim that he has operated a business out of the property for the past 28 years under the name and brand “Neelkanth Gems & Jewellers”.
This tenancy later passed into the ownership of the respondent, who bought it from the property’s previous owner. The respondent had given six months prior notice to the petitioner in order to vacate the tenement in question.
This petitioner brought a writ petition under Article 227 challenging the judgment that was rendered by the Court of Additional Civil Judge by virtue of which the respondent was granted release of the property in question and the petitioner was asked to vacate the property as well as peacefully handover its possession to the respondent. The respondent claimed that there is no other suitable or alternative place available to him, given the type of business.
Although Entry 18 of Schedule 7 List 2 of the Indian Constitution covers the provisions of the rent laws, all state laws governing rent control or the relationship between a landlord and tenant are always based on the broader principles of the reasonableness of the need, which has been expressed by the respondent in the release application to justify the vacation of the tenancy.
The Court held that a landlord can best judge his requirements and the Court also held that when there is no evidence by way of pleading or documents on record to show that the tenant has searched for an alternative residence after the service of notice, no interference can be made by the Court by virtue of Article 227.
The Court directed that after receiving the certified copy of this judgement, the petitioner was to vacant the property and hand over its possession to the respondent within two months.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed because it was found devoid of merit.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into the category of Best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY NISHTHA GARHWAL
Click here to view the judgement: Sh_Shyam_Sundar_Kataria_vs_Sh_Sumit_Grover_And_Another_on_28_January_2022