Case: Chhote Lal Nishad (D) Vs. Ravinder Kumar Srivastava

d, 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 09.01.2001.3. Being aggrieved, thefiled Civil Revision Petition No. 24 of 2001 before the Additional District Magistrate against the order dated 09.01.2001, which also came to be dismissed on 08.02.2002.4. Being aggrieved, thetook 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 theto 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. We may usefully extract the impugned order of the High Court, which reads as underCourt has appreciated the bonafide need of a lawyer in various judgments as reported in 1995 (1) ARC 200, Surjan Sing v. IX A.D.J. Kapur (Para6), 1984(2) ARC 548, Prem Nath Bhatia v. Munsi Lal Nigam and others (Para 8) and 1993(1) ARC 362, Shobha Ram and others v. 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 Honble Supreme Court of India in 2005(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 436 : (2005) 8 SCC 252  , Sait Nagjee Purshotham & Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal and others and 1996(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 233 : JT 1996(6) SC 468   Mrs. Meenal Eknath Kshisagar v. M/s Traders & Agencies and others as also a decision of this Court as reported in 1988 AWC 1063 Cappanal v. 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 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 inAllahabad 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.Being aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court, theis before this Court.

Reasoning:
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the order passed by the High Court, we do not think that the contention of themerits 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 theto 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 theas the eviction application to be filed by thewill be proceeded denovo.