Jai Prakash Gupta (D) Thr.Lrs vs Riyaz Ahamad & Anr

4. The brief facts, which are necessary for decision of this appeal are as follows :-

8. Aggrieved by this order of the Appellate Court, the tenant filed a writ petition, which came to be registered as Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1112 of 2001 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. During the pendency of the writ petition, the original applicant for release of the shop in dispute i.e. the father of the present appellant died and in his 6 place, the heirs and legal representatives of the original appellant were substituted by the High Court by an order dated 25th of August, 2005. During the pendency of the writ petition, it was brought on record that the mother of the appellant and the father of the tenant had also expired. On 23rd of May, 2007, the tenant, by a Supplementary Affidavit, alleged that after the death of the original appellant, the present appellant, Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, the only son of the original appellant (since deceased), has inherited all his residential and commercial property and, therefore, the alleged need of the landlord had become fully satisfied, rendering the release proceeding infructuous. The tenant, in the said Supplementary Affidavit, further alleged that the printing business conducted by the deceased father of the present landlord had ceased to exist and consequent thereupon, one big hall and two rooms came in possession of the present landlord.

9. Replying to this supplementary affidavit, the present landlord, by a counter affidavit, however, claimed that in 15 years of litigation, his bonafide need had become more 7 pressing and genuine as he now has two sons aged about 17 and 16 years and one daughter aged about 13 years. Moreover, it was alleged in the counter affidavit that his wife was running an Education Centre on the first floor of the shop in dispute. It was further alleged in the counter affidavit filed by the present landlord that after the death of the father of the tenant, the tenant had inherited a house at Khairanagar, Meerut, in which the tenant and his family members are now residing and also carrying on the workshop of `lathe machine'. Therefore, the present landlord alleged that the subsequent developments brought in by the tenant and the counter affidavit filed by the present landlord, were not at all material so as to nullify the need of the landlord.

23. For the reasons aforesaid, we are, therefore, of the opinion that for the purpose of coming to a positive conclusion on the bonafide need of the present landlord and the comparative hardship of the parties on the basis of the 21 subsequent developments, as noted hereinearlier, the matter needs to be examined on further evidence after restoring the Writ Petition before the High Court with a direction in the manner indicated above in view of the fact that the justice has already been delayed for a long time.

24. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the Judgment of the High Court and restore the Writ Petition and direct the High Court to decide the same in the manner indicated above.

25. Accordingly, the High Court is requested to decide the writ petition within 6 months from the date of the supply of a copy of this order to it without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties in the light of the directions made hereinabove.

26. The appeal is thus allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.