look news india
_801714745.jpg)
Legal Desk, Prayagraj. Allahabad High Court has given a very important and precedent-setting decision on the ongoing disputes between landlord and tenant. The bench of Justice Ajit Kumar has clarified that if the landlord has a personal and genuine requirement of his property, then the tenant will have to vacate the place. Giving priority to property rights, the court said that the tenant cannot direct the landlord where or how he should do his work.
Will have to vacate shop or house in case of personal need
The High Court, while rejecting a petition, said in a strict tone that when the need of the landlord is proved to be ‘genuine’, then there is no scope for legal interference in it. In this case the landlord had demanded to vacate his two shops. The Court found that the owner’s needs outweighed the tenant’s plea that he would face difficulty in leaving the shop. Under Article 227 of the Constitution, relief cannot be given in such petitions where the owner’s right is primary and genuine.
It is completely ‘justified’ to vacate the shop for self-employment.
The most important aspect of this case was that the landlord had given a solid reason for vacating the shop – he was working there for his Motorcycle and Scooter Repair (Repair Shop) Wanted to start a business.
The court and the prescribed authority considered this to be a ‘genuine necessity’. The court said that the requirement of the landlord to start his self-employment is greater than the compulsion of the tenant not to leave the shop. The law gives the owner full right to use his property for his economic development.
Only the landlord will decide which place is ‘best’ for business.
Tenants often argue that the landlord has other spaces, why doesn’t he do his work there? The High Court has made the legal position absolutely clear on this:
Owner’s choice paramount: The tenant cannot force the landlord to open his shop at some other place.
Rule of alternative accommodation: The court does look at whether the tenant has the option to move, but if the landlord has a genuine need, the landlord is the best judge of what accommodation is best for his family or business.
UP Urban Rent Control Rules: The court accepted that the order to vacate the shop by the prescribed authority Rule 16(1)(d) This was completely correct under the Act, as the landlord’s needs met the legal test.
The court put this condition for balance
Although the decision is in favor of the landlord, the court has also made it clear that the house cannot be vacated merely because of harassing the tenant or due to malafide intention. The landlord will have to prove before the court that there is someone behind his demand. solid and true reason Is.
This decision has brought great relief to those landlords who were fighting a legal battle for years to use their own property. The message to tenants is that they will have to leave the property if legally required.
