LAWS(ALL)-2012-5-368

BHANU PRAKASH CHATURVEDI Vs. JAIRANI AND ORS.

Decided On May 29, 2012
Bhanu Prakash Chaturvedi Appellant
V/S
Jairani And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Sudeep Seth, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Siddharth Dhaon, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties and perused the record.

(2.) The opposite parties had filed their written statement in which it was alleged that regarding the same subject-matter another suit was filed, which was withdrawn. It was denied that the shop is in dilapidated condition. The opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3 had also stated that the opposite party Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 have no concern with the shop in which the business in the name and style of Prakash Gun House is being carried out. It was also alleged that the applicants No. 1 has other shop and there was no bona fide need. The application was contested mainly by the opposite party No. 4, Bhanu Prakash Chaturvedi, who is the petitioner in this case, who has alleged that Lalta Prasad Chaturvedi had purchased the plot of land for a consideration of Rs. 50/- from the fruit seller Pohap and Lalta Prasad Chaturvedi had constructed the shop in the year 1966, in which the business in the name and style of Prakash Gun House is being carried out. Lalta Prasad Chaturvedi had executed a Will in favour of Bhanu Prakash Chaturvedi, therefore, Bhanu Prakash Chaturvedi is the owner of the shop in dispute. The sale-deed in favour of Ganga Devi is forged. The petitioner, who was opposite party No. 4, had filed an amendment on 16.1.2004, in which it was admitted that the shop in dispute belonged to Syed Ejaz Rasool, who had executed a lease-deed on 19.5.1931 in favour of Sultan Ahmad Bilgrami. Therefore, Syed Ejaz Rasool had no right to execute the sale-deed because the lease deed was never cancelled, therefore, the sale-deed executed in favour of Hemraj Shivni was not effective.

(3.) After considering the evidence of both the parties, the learned Prescribed Authority came to the conclusion that the applicants were the owner landlord of the shop in question while the opposite party No. 4 (petitioner) was not the owner of the property in question. Learned Court below also came to the conclusion that there was bona fide need of the applicants and the comparative hardship was also in favour of the applicants. It was also held that the shop in question was in a dilapidated condition, which requires reconstruction and accordingly allowed the application by judgment and order dated 7.4.2004. The said judgment was challenged in the Rent Appeal No. 01 of 2004, which was also dismissed by judgment and order dated 26.4.2013.