In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has dismissed a 30-year-old writ petition filed by M/s Whorra Brothers against the landlady Smt. Kastoori Devi, upholding an appellate order that granted release of a commercial property in favour of the landlady. The Court observed that the tenant had not paid rent since 1979 and had deliberately stalled the litigation for over four decades, resulting in an “entire generation” being lost.
Justice Pankaj Bhatia, presiding over Writ-A No. 1000097 of 1995, termed the conduct of the petitioner as an “abuse of process of law writ large”, and imposed a cost of ₹15 lakh on the tenant, to be recovered as arrears of land revenue by the District Magistrate, Lucknow if not paid within two months.
Background of the Case
The dispute dates back to 1982, when Smt. Kastoori Devi, the landlady of a commercial property at 498/239, Faizabad Road, Lucknow, filed a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No.13 of 1972). She sought possession of the property for setting up a manufacturing unit for her son, a graduate who wished to start his business.
At that time, the property was occupied by M/s Whorra Brothers, who were paying a rent of ₹187.50 per month. The Prescribed Authority rejected the release application in 1992, doubting the bonafide need asserted by the landlady. However, this was reversed by the Appellate Authority in 1995, which allowed the appeal and granted possession to the landlady.
Challenging the appellate order, M/s Whorra Brothers filed the writ petition which remained pending before the High Court for nearly 30 years.
Key Legal Issues and Findings
1. Sub-Tenancy and Misuse of Tenancy Rights
The Court observed that although the tenancy was initially granted to M/s Whorra Brothers, the premises had come into use by M/s Whorra Brothers and Company, a different entity established in 1973 with distinct partners. This amounted to an unauthorized sub-tenancy, violating Section 12 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, which treats such transfer of possession as deemed vacancy.
“Clearly, the setting up of another firm namely M/s Whorra Brothers and Company was a case of sub-tenancy… and would incur the vice of Section 12,” the Court noted.
2. Bonafide Need and Comparative Hardship
Justice Bhatia upheld the appellate authority’s observation that the landlord has the discretion to choose which property best suits the intended use, and the tenant cannot dictate otherwise.
“The landlady… is the person suited for deciding the place where the need as alleged can be carried out. The tenant does not have any authority to dictate terms.”
The Court also rejected the tenant’s argument that the landlady had acquired alternate properties, stating that none were proven suitable for establishing the proposed manufacturing unit.
3. Delay, Non-payment of Rent, and Abuse of Process
The tenant had not paid rent since April 1, 1979, and failed to rebut this claim. Additionally, the property remained unused, and the litigation tactics of the petitioners reflected a clear attempt to obstruct justice.
“The tenant… has succeeded in frustrating the efforts of the landlady since the year 1982. The manner in which it has been contested reveals that constantly, the efforts were made… to deny the adjudication.”
Final Order and Directions
- The writ petition was dismissed.
- ₹15 lakh cost imposed on the petitioners, recoverable as arrears of land revenue if not paid in 2 months.
- Executing Court directed to ensure vacant possession is handed over to the landlady’s heirs within 3 weeks.
- Compliance reports to be filed by the Executing Court and District Magistrate, Lucknow.
- The Court sent a copy of its order to the District Judge and District Magistrate, Lucknow.
In concluding, the Court lamented the long delay and irreparable loss caused to the landlady’s family:
“The entire career of her son for establishing a commercial undertaking stands jeopardized by an unscrupulous tenant without payment of any rent, who has delayed the proceedings for more than 45 years.”
Legal Representation
- Petitioners (M/s Whorra Brothers): Advocates Virendra Mishra, Alok Sinha, and Sandeep Dixit.
- Respondents (Smt. Kastoori Devi & others): Senior Advocates B.C. Agarwal, Piyush Kumar Agarwal, Varadraj S. Ojha, with additional arguments by Gaurav Mehrotra and Ms. Alina Masoodi.
