{"id":137342,"date":"2010-07-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-07-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gandhi-ashram-khadi-bhadar-vs-xix-a-d-j-meerut-others-on-3-july-2010-2"},"modified":"2015-06-20T14:28:03","modified_gmt":"2015-06-20T08:58:03","slug":"shri-gandhi-ashram-khadi-bhadar-vs-xix-a-d-j-meerut-others-on-3-july-2010-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gandhi-ashram-khadi-bhadar-vs-xix-a-d-j-meerut-others-on-3-july-2010-2","title":{"rendered":"Shri Gandhi Ashram Khadi Bhadar & … vs Xix A.D.J., Meerut & Others on 3 July, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n
Shri Gandhi Ashram Khadi Bhadar & … vs Xix A.D.J., Meerut & Others on 3 July, 2010<\/div>\n
                                                                             1\n\n                                                                    Reserved\n\n\n\n\n                  Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.34048 of 1999\n\n\n                     Shri Gandhi Ashram Khadi Bhandar\n                                and another\n\n                                     Versus\n                          XIX Additional District Judge,\n                               Meerut and others\n\n\n                                Connected with\n\n\n                  Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.34519 of 1999\n\n\n                                Ajit Kumar Jain\n                                     Versus\n                          XIX Additional District Judge,\n                               Meerut and others\n\n\n\nHon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.\n<\/pre>\n
      Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.34048 of 1999 has been filed by Shri Gandhi
\nAshram Khadi Bhandar, questioning the validity of order dated 16.05.1999
\npassed by the Prescribed Authority, allowing application moved on behalf of
\nlandlord under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and the order of
\nits affirmance dated 28.07.1999, in appeal under Section 22 of the said Act.
\nCivil Misc. Writ Petition No.34519 of 1999 has been filed by the petitioner,
\nquestioning the validity of order dated 16.05.1999 passed by the Prescribed
\nAuthority, allowing application moved on behalf of landlord under Section 21
\n(1) (a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 and the order of its affirmance dated
\n28.07.1999, in appeal under Section 22 of the said Act.\n<\/p>\n
      Brief background of the case is that respondent No.3, Anil Kumar Mittal
\nis the landlord of premises No.125, Sotiganj, Begaum Bridge Road, Meerut. In
\none portion of the said building, Shri Gandhi Ashram Khadi Bhandar has been
\nthere as tenant on monthly rent of Rs.260\/-. In the same very premises, there
\n                                                                                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
is shop of Ajit Kumar Jain on monthly rent of Rs.,125\/-. Respondent No.3 filed
\nP.A. Case Nos. 166\/92 and 167\/92 against Shri Gandhi Ashram Khadi Bhandra
\nand Ajit Kumar Jain. In both the release application so moved, case of the
\nlandlord has been that he intends to open departmental store after
\nreconstructing the premises in question; he bona fidely needs the premises in
\nquestion , as his other business is too small. Release applications of the
\nlandlord was opposed by both the tenants by filing written statement. Precise
\nstand taken by the tenants was that the need of the landlord was not at all
\nbona fide and genuine; he had got extra source of income. Recently, he had
\nsold his house situated at the first floor portion of the disputed premises, which
\nwas lying vacant; he could have carried on his business on the first floor.
\nAdditional objection was filed contending therein that the landlord has been
\ncarrying on business at Sadar Kabari Bazar; he can carry on business of
\ndepartmental store from the said place. After the objections, written statement
\nand additional objections had been filed, landlord filed his replica and
\ncontended therein that the said portion known as Marwari Bhojanalaya was
\nvacated after long drawn litigation and by the time it was vacated, it had come
\nto dilapidated condition, as such in order to avoid any mis-happening, such
\ndilapidated portion of the building was got down, and the same is not at all
\nbefitting for the requirement. From the side of landlord his affidavit along with
\nbalance sheet, sale deed dated 28.02.1992 and other voluminous documents
\nwere filed. From the side of Gandhi Ashram, affidavit of Kr. Ganga Prasad
\nSingh, Kalp Nath Rai and R.S. Gupta had been filed. Similarly, in P.A. Case
\nNo.167 of 1992 affidavits on the similar line had been filed.\n<\/p>\n
      The Prescribed Authority in both the cases found the need of the
\nlandlord bona fide and genuine one and on comparative hardship finding was
\nreturned against the tenant. Both the tenants preferred separate appeals, both
\nthe appeals have been dismissed reiterating the same view. At this juncture,
\npresent writ petitions in question have been filed.\n<\/p>\n
      Pleadings interse parties have been exchanged; thereafter, with the
\nconsent of the parties, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing
\nand disposal.\n<\/p>\n
      Sri Atul Dayal, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for Shri Gandhi
\nAshram Khadi Bhandar, contended with vehemence that in the present case
\nneed of landlord in no way could be termed as bona fide and genuine one and
\n                                                                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
further incorrect statement of fact has been mentioned that business was being
\nrun in the name of his wife, whereas various entries showed and established
\nthat the landlord himself had control over the business, and further the landlord
\nhad alternative accommodation to establish himself, as such finding on bona
\nfide front is perverse, and as far as comparative hardship is concerned,
\npetitioners would be in more disadvantageous situation, as such release
\napplication ought to have been dismissed, and writ petition deserves to be
\nallowed.\n<\/p>\n
      Sri Anjani Kumar Mishra, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for writ
\npetitioner, Ajit Kumar Jain, in writ petition No.34519 of 1999, toed the same line
\nof argument as has been advanced by Sri Atul Dayal and tried to contend that
\nin the facts of the case need set up by the landlord was not at all bona fide and
\ngenuine and reiterated that on comparative hardship, petitioner was to suffer
\nmore and further as landlord required 2200 square feet and as per provisions
\nof U.P. Urban Building Planning and Development Act, 1973, the area as was
\nrequired was not available, in such a situation and in the facts of the case, writ
\npetition deserves to be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
      Countering the said submissions, Sri Madan Mohan, Advocate,
\nappearing for the landlord, has contended that both the courts below have
\nrecorded concurrent finding of fact qua bona fide need and comparative
\nhardship, and this Court, in such a situation, should refuse to interfere with the
\nfindings recorded by the courts below, and further it is the choice of landlord as
\nto which place would be much more suitable for carrying on business and the
\ntenants have no role to play in the matter of choice of the landlord as to from
\nwhere he should carry on business, in this background, writ petition deserves
\nto be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
      As much stress has been laid by the tenants on the fact that in fact, the
\nlandlord has chosen wrong place to carry on business; in fact he has been
\ncarrying on business in the name of his wife as well himself and at Sadar
\nKabari Bazar; he can carry on business of departmental store, which is
\nappropriate for the said business of departmental store, and shop in question
\nis not bona fidly required, the said issues are being adverted to, first on the
\nparameters settled by Hon’ble Apex Court.\n<\/p>\n
      Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Akhileshwar Kumar and others v.
\nMustaqim, AIR 2003 SC 532, took the view that simply because educated
\n                                                                                         4<\/span><\/p>\n
unemployed son was provisionally assisting his father in family business same
\ndoes not mean that he should not start his own independent business, and
\nchoice of accommodation should be left to the needy. Relevant paragraphs 3
\nand 4 are being extracted below:\n<\/p>\n
      “3. In our opinion, the approach adopted by the High Court cannot be
\n      countenanced and has occasioned a failure of justice. Overwhelming
\n      evidence is available to show that the plaintiff No. 1 is sitting idle, without
\n      any adequate commercial activity available to him so as to gainfully
\n      employ him. The plaintiff No. 1 and his father both have deposed to this
\n      fact. Simply because the plaintiff No. 1 is provisionally assisting his father
\n      in their family business, it does not mean that he should never start his
\n      own independent business. What the High Court has overlooked is the
\n      evidence to the effect, relied on by the trial Court too, that the husband of
\n      plaintiff No. 4, i.e. son-in-law of Ram Chandra Sao, was assisting the latter
\n      in his business and there was little left to be done by the three sons.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      4.       So is the case with the availability of alternative accommodation, as
\n      opined by the High Court. There is a shop in respect of which a suit for
\n      eviction was filed to satisfy the need of plaintiff No. 2. The suit was
\n      compromised and the shop was got vacated. The shop is meant for the
\n      business of plaintiff No. 2. There is yet another shop constructed by the
\n      father of the plaintiffs which is situated over a septic tank but the same is
\n      almost inaccessible inasmuch as there is a deep ditch in front of the shop
\n      and that is why it is lying vacant and utilized. Once it has been proved by a
\n      landlord that the suit accommodation is required bona fide by him for his
\n      own purpose and such satisfaction withstands the test of objective
\n      assessment by the Court of facts then choosing of the accommodation
\n      which would be reasonable to satisfy such requirement has to be left to the
\n      subjective choice of the needy. The Court cannot thrust upon its own
\n      choice on the needy. Of course, the choice has to be exercised reasonably
\n      and not whimsically. The alternative accommodation which have prevailed
\n      with the High Court are either not available to the plaintiff No. 1 or not
\n      suitable in all respects as the suit accommodation is. The approach of the
\n      High Court that an accommodation got vacated to satisfy the need of
\n      plaintiff No. 2, who too is an educated unemployed, should be diverted or
\n      can be considered as relevant alternative accommodation to satisfy the
\n      requirement of plaintiff No. 1 another educated unemployed brother,
\n      cannot be countenanced. So also considering a shop situated over a
\n      septic tank and inaccessible on account of a ditch in front of the shop and
\n      hence lying vacant cannot be considered a suitable alternative to the suit
\n      shop which is situated in a marketing complex, is easily accessible and
\n      has been purchased by the plaintiffs to satisfy the felt need of one of
\n      them.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sait Nagjee Purshottam & Co. Ltd.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
vs. Vimalbhai Prabhulal and others, 2005(8) SCC 252, has taken the view
\nthat it is prerogative of the landlord to decide for what purpose , he requires the
\nshop in question, and tenant cannot dictate to landlord and advise him, what
\nhe should do and what he should not. Paragraphs 4, 7 and 8 being relevant
\nare being quoted below:\n<\/p>\n
             “4. First of all we shall take up the question of bona fide need of
\n             the landlords. so far as the partition of the property and the
\n             present premises coming to the share of the landlords are
\n             concerned, there is no dispute that the portion of the building
\n             has come to the share of the landlords and they are the owners
\n                                                                          5<\/span><\/p>\n
as a result of the partition of the family properties. But the
\nquestion is whether the landlords who are the owners of the
\nportion of the building have substantiated the allegation with
\nregard to the bona fide need or not. We have gone through the
\nfindings of the trial Court as well as that of the appellate
\nauthority and the High Court and after closely scrutinizing the
\nsame, we do not think that the finding recorded by appellate
\nCourt and the High Court can be interfered by this Court on the
\nground of being perverse or without any basis. The landlords
\nhave led evidence to show that one of their sons who had
\nrequisite qualification for starting a computer institute wants to
\nestablish the same at Calicut and others for extension of their
\nbusiness. The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court and
\nthe High Court examined the statements of P. Ws. 2 and 3 and
\nafter considering their evidence, the appellate Court reversed
\nthe finding of the trial Court and held that the need of the
\nrespondent-landlords to start business at Calicut, is bona fide
\nand genuine. It was held that it cannot be said that a person
\nwho is already having business at one place cannot expand his
\nbusiness at any other place in the country. It is true that the
\nlandlords have their business spreading over Chennai and
\nHyderabad and if they wanted to expand their business at
\nCalicut it cannot be said to be unnatural thereby denying the
\neviction of the tenant from the premises in question. It is always
\nthe prerogative of the landlord that if he requires the premises
\nin question for his bona fide use for expansion of business this
\nis no ground to say that the landlords are already having their
\nbusiness at Chennai and Hyderabad therefore, it is not genuine
\nneed. It is not the tenant who can dictate the terms to the
\nlandlords and advise him what he should do and what he
\nshould not. It is always the privilege of the landlord to choose
\nthe nature of the business and the place of business. However,
\nthe trial Court held in favour of tenant appellant. But the
\nappellate Court as well as the High Court after scrutinizing the
\nevidence on record, reversed the finding of the trial Court and
\nheld that the need of establishing the business at Calicut by the
\nlandlords cannot be said to be lacking in bona fide.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
7.       In the case of Pratap Rai Tanwani and Anr. v. Uttam
\nChand and Anr. reported in (2004) 8 SCC 490, it was held that
\nthe bona fide requirement of the landlord has to be seen on the
\ndate of the petition and the subsequent events intervening due
\nto protracted litigation will not be relevant. It was held that the
\ncrucial date is the date of petition. Their Lordships further
\nobserved that the normal rule is that the rights and obligations
\nof the parties are to be determined on the date of the petition
\nand that subsequent events can be taken into consideration for
\nmoulding the reliefs provided such events had a material impact
\non those rights and      obligations. It was further observed by
\ntheir Lordships that it is a stark reality that the longer is the life
\nof the litigation the more would be the number of developments
\nsprouting up during the long interregnum. Therefore, the Courts
\nhave to take a very pragmatic approach of the matter. It is the
\ncommon experience in our country that specially landlord tenant
\nlitigation prolongs for a long period. It is true that neither the
\nperson who has started the litigation can sit idle nor the
\ndevelopment of the events can be stopped by him. Therefore,
\nthe crucial event should be taken as on the date when the suit
\nfor eviction was filed unless the subsequent event materially
\nchanged the ground of relief.\n<\/p>\n
8.     In the case of Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava
\nreported in (2001) 2 SCC 604, their Lordships observed that the
\n                                                                                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
             landlord should not be penalized for the slowness of the legal
\n             system and the crucial date for deciding the bona fide of the
\n             requirement of the landlord is the date of his application for
\n             eviction. Their Lordships also observed that the process of
\n             litigation cannot be made the basis denying the landlord relief
\n             while litigation at least reaches the final stages. However, their
\n             Lordships further added that subsequent events may in some
\n             situations be considered to have overshadowed the
\n             genuineness of the landlord’s need but only if they are of such
\n             nature and dimension as to completely eclipse such need and
\n             make it lose significance altogether.\n<\/p>\n
      Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Sushila v. 2nd Additional
\nDistrict Judge, Banda and others, 2003 (1) ARC 256 has taken the view
\nthat need for settling married and major son is bona fide need, and he cannot
\nbe compelled to join his father and do work. Relevant paragraph 5 of the said
\njudgment are being extracted below:\n<\/p>\n
              “5. We find that Prem Prakash is a young man who is
\n      unemployed. He is married and has children. There is every
\n      justification for him or for his mother to settle him in life
\n      independently. He cannot be compelled to join his father in his
\n      Goldsmith and money-lending work in his small shop. In our opinion,
\n      he is entitled to start business of his own choice and independently.
\n      The appellate Court took a view, as indicated above, which is
\n      palpably wrong and wholly unacceptable.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      On the parameters as set out by Hon’ble Apex Court, as far as choice of
\nplace is concerned, the tenant has no role to play in the matter, inasmuch as the
\nlandlord is the best judge to choose as to from which place he should carry on
\nbusiness. In the present case, landlord has chosen the premises in question as the
\nbest place to carry on his business, which is on the main road of Meerut city at
\nBegum Bridge and has also given reasons for non opening of departmental store at
\nKabar Bazar, Meerut. Once this is the factual scenario, then in respect of choice of
\nplace to carry on business from Begum Bridge Road cannot be objected to.
\nSubmission made that the said area will fall short, after map is sanctioned as per
\nthe provisions of U.P. Urban Planning and Town Development Act, 1973, is also
\nneither here nor there. Construction within the regulated area has to be carried out,
\nas per the sanctioned plan, and in sanctioned map if area shown for opening of
\ndepartmental store has been lessened, same will in no way dilute the choice of
\nplace, once landlord still carries the intention to open departmental store, within the
\nspace available, as per sanctioned map, in this background, tenants cannot be
\npermitted to derive any benefit for advantage of the said situation.\n<\/p>\n
       It is further clearly reflected that the landlord has come up with specific case
\nthat he was running shuttering business at Kabari Bazar, and he intends to
\nestablish a new business. Once such is the need set up by the landlord, and both
\n                                                                                       7<\/span><\/p>\n
the courts below have accepted the need of the landlord to be bona fide one for
\nsetting up of new business over the disputed premises, then as far as bona fide
\nneed of the landlord is concerned, same is not at all liable to be interfered with. The
\nquestion of bona fide need is essentially a question of fact, and this much has come
\nin evidence that except for shuttering business, petitioner has no other business in
\nhis name and other documents available on record clearly substantiate that the
\nother business was being carried by the wife of the landlord and the landlord
\nhimself had no independent business in his name. Merely because in some
\nfinancial transaction entries have been shown in the name of landlord, bona fide
\nneed set up by the landlord cannot be doubted in the facts of the case.\n<\/p>\n
      Now question of comparative hardship is being looked into.
\n      In Mst. Begam Begum & Ors. V. Abdul Ahad Khan<\/a> (d) by Lrs & Ors.
\n(1979(1) SCC 273) Hon’ble Apex court had occasion to deal in detail with the
\ncomparative hardship’s aspect as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      “Moreover Section 11(h) of the Act uses the words ‘reasonable
\n      requirement’ which undoubtedly postulate that there must be an
\n      element of need as opposed to a mere desire or wish. The distinction
\n      between desire and need should doubtless be kept in mind but not so
\n      as to make even the genuine need as nothing but a desire as the High
\n      Court has done in this case. It seems to us that the connotation of the
\n      term ‘need’ or ‘requirement’ should not be artificially extended nor its
\n      language so unduly stretched or strained as to make it impossible or
\n      extremely difficult for one landlord to get a decree for eviction. Such a
\n      course would defeat the very purpose of the Act which affords the
\n      facility of eviction of the tenant to the landlord on certain specified
\n      grounds. This appears to us to be the general scheme of all the Rent
\n      Control Acts, prevalent in other State in the country. This Court has
\n      considered the import of the word requirement and pointed out that it
\n      merely connotes that there should be an element of need.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               In this connection our attention was drawn to the evidence led by
\n      the defendants that the main source of their income is the hotel
\n      business carried on by them in the premises and if they are thrown out
\n      they are likely to get any alternative accommodation. The High Court
\n      has accepted the case of the defendants on this point, but does not
\n      appear to have considered the natural consequences, which flow from a
\n      comparative assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of the
\n      landlord and the tenant if a decree for eviction follows. It is no doubt
\n      true that the tenant will have to be ousted from the house if a decree for
\n      eviction is passed, but such an event would happen whenever a decree
\n      for eviction is passed and was fully in contemplation of the legislature
\n      when Section 11(1)(h) of the Act was introduced in the Act. This by itself
\n      would not be valid ground for refusing the plaintiffs for eviction.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              Thus, on careful comparison and assessment of the relative
\n      advantage and disadvantages of the landlord and the tenant it seems to
\n      us that the scale is titled in favour of the plaintiff. The inconvenience,
\n      loss and trouble resulting from denial of a decree for eviction in favour
\n      of the plaintiffs far outweight the eviction from that point of view.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Judgment quoted above has been followed by Hon’ble Apex Court in
\nthe case of    Badrinarayan Chunnilal Bhutda v. Govind Ram Munada,
\n                                                                               8<\/span><\/p>\n
2003 (2) SCC 320, and apart from the same in paragraph 13 mentioned as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
            “13. In Piper v. Harvey, (1979) 1 SCC 273 the issue
\n      as to comparative hardship arose for the consideration of the
\n      Court of Appeal under the Rent Act, 1957. Lord Dennining
\n      opined: (All ER p. 457E-F)
\n                   “When I look at all the evidence in this case and see
\n            the strong case of hardship which the landlord put forward,
\n            and when I see that the tenant did not give any evidence of
\n            any attempts made by him to find other accommodation, to
\n            look for another house, either to buy or to rent, it seems to
\n            me that there is only one reasonable conclusion to be arrived
\n            at, and that is that the tenant did not prove (and burden is on
\n            him to prove) the case of greater hardship.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Hodson, L.J. opined: (All ER p. 458)
\n                    “The tenant has not been able to say anything more
\n            than the minimum which every tenant can say, namely, that
\n            he has in fact been in occupation of the bungalow, and that
\n            he has not at the moment any other place to go to. He has
\n            not, however, sought to prove anything additional to that by
\n            way of hardship, such as unsuccessful attempts to find other
\n            accommodation, or, indeed, to raise the question of his
\n            relative financial incompetence as compared with the
\n            landlord.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Hon’ble Apex Court in recent judgment of Ganga Devi v. District
\nJudge Nainital, 2008 (7) ADJ 501, where tenant has not made any effort to
\nsearch accommodation, has not accorded any relief to the tenant. Paragraph s
\n15, 16 and 19 of the said judgment are being extracted below:\n<\/p>\n
      “15. There is also nothing on record to show that for the last so
\n      many years the appellant had made any effort to find out a
\n      tenanted premises for herself so that she can continue with her
\n      business. No such material at least has been brought on record.
\n      Any subsequent event as regards thereto has neither been
\n      pleaded nor proved.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           The provisions of the statutory rules must be interpreted so
\n      as to give effect to the object and purport of the Act. It cannot
\n      be applied in a vacuum, as the statute requires comparison of
\n      the hardship of both the tenant as also the landlord. It is,
\n      therefore, not a case where Rule 16 has any application.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      16. The court would not determine a question only on the
\n      basis of sympathy or sentiment. Stricto sensu equity as such
\n      may not have any role to play.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      19. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the
\n      opinion, that six months’ time should be granted to the 1st
\n      respondent to vacate the premises, which should serve the
\n      ends of justice. It is directed accordingly. Subject to the
\n      aforementioned directions, this appeal is dismissed. In the facts
\n      and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to
\n      cost.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                                                 9<\/span><\/p>\n
        In the present case, accepted position is that release application had
\nbeen filed in the year 1992. Since then more than 18 years period have
\nelapsed, and by now both the petitioners ought to have made alternative
\narrangement. In the present case, records are speaking for itself and in case
\nthe petitioners have not been able to arrange for alternative accommodation,
\nthen they themselves are to be blamed and here in addition to the same,
\nfinding is there that there is alternative accommodation available. In view of
\nthis there is no occasion to interfere with the orders impugned, qua finding of
\nfact returned on the question of bona fide need and comparative hardship,
\nboth.\n<\/p>\n
        Consequently, writ petitions fail and the same are, accordingly,
\ndismissed. Petitioners are accorded six month’s time to vacate the premises
\nin question and hand over its peaceful vacant possession to the landlord,
\nsubject to the condition that within one month from today affidavit shall be filed
\nby the tenant before the Prescribed Authority that premises in question will be
\nvacated on or before expiry of the period as aforesaid. In the event of affidavit
\nnot being filed within one month from today, the interim protection shall cease
\nto operate, and landlord would be at liberty to proceed accordingly, and interim
\nprotection of this Court would not come to rescue of petitioner.
\n03.07.2010
\nSRY.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court Shri Gandhi Ashram Khadi Bhadar & … vs Xix A.D.J., Meerut & Others on 3 July, 2010 1 Reserved Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.34048 of 1999 Shri Gandhi Ashram Khadi Bhandar and another Versus XIX Additional District Judge, Meerut and others Connected with Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.34519 of 1999 Ajit Kumar […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-137342","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nShri Gandhi Ashram Khadi Bhadar & ... vs Xix A.D.J., Meerut & Others on 3 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gandhi-ashram-khadi-bhadar-vs-xix-a-d-j-meerut-others-on-3-july-2010-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Shri Gandhi Ashram Khadi Bhadar & ... vs Xix A.D.J., Meerut & Others on 3 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gandhi-ashram-khadi-bhadar-vs-xix-a-d-j-meerut-others-on-3-july-2010-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-07-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-20T08:58:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-gandhi-ashram-khadi-bhadar-vs-xix-a-d-j-meerut-others-on-3-july-2010-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-gandhi-ashram-khadi-bhadar-vs-xix-a-d-j-meerut-others-on-3-july-2010-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Shri Gandhi Ashram Khadi Bhadar & … vs Xix A.D.J., Meerut & Others on 3 July, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-20T08:58:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-gandhi-ashram-khadi-bhadar-vs-xix-a-d-j-meerut-others-on-3-july-2010-2\"},\"wordCount\":4163,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-gandhi-ashram-khadi-bhadar-vs-xix-a-d-j-meerut-others-on-3-july-2010-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-gandhi-ashram-khadi-bhadar-vs-xix-a-d-j-meerut-others-on-3-july-2010-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-gandhi-ashram-khadi-bhadar-vs-xix-a-d-j-meerut-others-on-3-july-2010-2\",\"name\":\"Shri Gandhi Ashram Khadi Bhadar & ... vs Xix A.D.J., Meerut & Others on 3 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-07-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-20T08:58:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-gandhi-ashram-khadi-bhadar-vs-xix-a-d-j-meerut-others-on-3-july-2010-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-gandhi-ashram-khadi-bhadar-vs-xix-a-d-j-meerut-others-on-3-july-2010-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/shri-gandhi-ashram-khadi-bhadar-vs-xix-a-d-j-meerut-others-on-3-july-2010-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Shri Gandhi Ashram Khadi Bhadar & … vs Xix A.D.J., Meerut & Others on 3 July, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Shri Gandhi Ashram Khadi Bhadar & ... vs Xix A.D.J., Meerut & Others on 3 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gandhi-ashram-khadi-bhadar-vs-xix-a-d-j-meerut-others-on-3-july-2010-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Shri Gandhi Ashram Khadi Bhadar & ... vs Xix A.D.J., Meerut & Others on 3 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gandhi-ashram-khadi-bhadar-vs-xix-a-d-j-meerut-others-on-3-july-2010-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-07-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-20T08:58:03+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gandhi-ashram-khadi-bhadar-vs-xix-a-d-j-meerut-others-on-3-july-2010-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gandhi-ashram-khadi-bhadar-vs-xix-a-d-j-meerut-others-on-3-july-2010-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Shri Gandhi Ashram Khadi Bhadar & … vs Xix A.D.J., Meerut & Others on 3 July, 2010","datePublished":"2010-07-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-20T08:58:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gandhi-ashram-khadi-bhadar-vs-xix-a-d-j-meerut-others-on-3-july-2010-2"},"wordCount":4163,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gandhi-ashram-khadi-bhadar-vs-xix-a-d-j-meerut-others-on-3-july-2010-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gandhi-ashram-khadi-bhadar-vs-xix-a-d-j-meerut-others-on-3-july-2010-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gandhi-ashram-khadi-bhadar-vs-xix-a-d-j-meerut-others-on-3-july-2010-2","name":"Shri Gandhi Ashram Khadi Bhadar & ... vs Xix A.D.J., Meerut & Others on 3 July, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-07-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-20T08:58:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gandhi-ashram-khadi-bhadar-vs-xix-a-d-j-meerut-others-on-3-july-2010-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gandhi-ashram-khadi-bhadar-vs-xix-a-d-j-meerut-others-on-3-july-2010-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/shri-gandhi-ashram-khadi-bhadar-vs-xix-a-d-j-meerut-others-on-3-july-2010-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Shri Gandhi Ashram Khadi Bhadar & … vs Xix A.D.J., Meerut & Others on 3 July, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/137342","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=137342"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/137342\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=137342"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=137342"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=137342"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}