Case BriefsHigh Courts

Sikkim High Court: Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J. confirmed a decree of eviction passed against the appellant-tenant by the District Judge on the bonafide requirement of the landlord.

The sole ground for eviction being contended in the application was the requirement of suit premises for the personal occupation of the landlord. Under the relevant statutory notification, the landlord could evict the tenant only on showing the bonafide requirement for personal occupation. A holistic reading of the plaint suggested that the landlord required the suit premises as his house was in a dilapidated condition; his ill health including mental illness for which he desired to accommodate a help; to accommodate his growing children who did not have adequate personal space in the house and who were pestering him for it which was causing him mental stress; to establish them in business as they were completing their education; etc.

The appellant -tenant was represented by Laxmi Chakraborty and Manju Rai, Advocates. Per contra, Zangpo Sherpa, Deven Sharma, Jushan Lepcha and Mon Maya Subba, Advocates represented the respondent-landlord.

On perusal of the record, the High Court found the facts as claimed of the landlord to be true. Referring to its earlier case in Pradeep Golyan v. Durga Prasad Mukhia, 2016 SCC OnLine Sikk 225, the Court observed: “That personal occupation of the landlord includes the requirement of the dependents as well is now well settled.” The landlord pleaded hardship and proved it. He proved a bonafide requirement of personal occupation. Furthermore, the appellant did was unable to show any special equities in his favour against the eviction.

In such circumstances, the Court confirmed the decree of eviction passed by the District Judge. However, considering the fact that the appellant was in occupation of the suit premises and doing his business from there since 1999, he was given four months’ time to vacate the suit premises on the condition that he will continue to pay rent till then. [Bishnu Prasad Bhagat v. Prakash Basnett, 2019 SCC OnLine Sikk 84, decided on 15-06-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. allowed a writ petition which was preferred against the action of the respondent of not extending the benefits to the petitioner which were available to the dependents of freedom fighter under various schemes floated by Government of India and State Government as well under the Act called as “Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped Dependents of Freedom Fighter and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993” on the premise that the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit because she happens to be granddaughter (daughter’s daughter) of the deceased freedom fighter and would not be covered in the definition of family.

Tapan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner since being daughter’s daughter was a member of the family of deceased freedom fighter, irrespective of the fact that she was married or not, that ought not deprive the petitioner of availing the benefit under the freedom fighter scheme on the premise that she is married granddaughter of the deceased freedom fighter, It was also argued that such practices were an encouragement to gender discrimination. While further citing Isha Tyagi v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 15982, the counsel highlighted how such law will lead to gender discrimination as grandson (i.e. son’s son) of the freedom fighter was included under the definition of the ‘dependents of the family’ of freedom fighter in that eventuality that granddaughter i.e. daughter’s daughter or son should also be entitled to the benefit under the scheme. It was vehemently averred that such discrimination for the compassionate appointment was violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. In Isha Tyagi, it was held that, “benefit of the horizontal reservation for descendants of freedom fighters shall extend both to descendants of a freedom fighter tracing their lineage through a son or through a daughter irrespective of the marital status of the daughter. Neither a married daughter nor her children would be disqualified from receiving the benefit of the reservation which is otherwise available to them in their capacity as descendants of a freedom fighter. Whether, in a given case including the present, an applicant is truly a descendant of a freedom fighter is undoubtedly for the authority to verify.”

High Court, observed that judgment in Isha Tyagi, is concurred by a Full Bench of Uttaranchal High Court as well and there was no contradictory remark on it. Thus, the law had been laid down by the judges who bar such discrimination. It was stated by the Court, that ratio of earlier judgments would be applicable in relation to an extension of the benefit of the daughter, granddaughter or grandson of the freedom fighter as they cannot be discriminated on the basis of gender discrimination.

Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction that there cannot be any gender discrimination in relation to claim raised by the petitioner being the daughter’s daughter of the freedom fighter. [Ruchika Tomar v. State of Uttarakhand, 2019 SCC OnLine Utt 483, decided on 01-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: A Division Bench of A.B. Chaudhari and Harnaresh Singh Gill, JJ., addressed a petition where petitioner challenged Part 5(1) Clause (b) of a notification issued by the State of Haryana along with the order.

Petitioner contended that the impugned notification provided financial assistance equal to the pay and other allowances last drawn by the employee for 15 years. Petitioner prayed that this restriction was arbitrary, irrational and unconstitutional and thus the order related thereto should be set aside. Argument advanced by the respondent was that the issue raised in this petition was covered by a decision of this Court against the petitioner, thus this petition should be dismissed accordingly.

High Court applauded the clause in the notification for solving the problem of dependents that they should receive the full salary of the deceased employee till his superannuation or till 15 years whichever is less. Court viewed 15 years to be enough for the dependents to find a way to financially stabilize themselves. Thus, it was found that nothing was wrong with the impugned clause of notification. The case of Krishna Kumari v. State of Haryana, CWP No. 4303 of 2009 was referred to where it was observed that Compassionate Assistance to dependents is to deal with the emergent situation of the family of deceased and if the dependents approach court after a long delay then the purpose of assistance would be lost. It was thus opined by the court that the policy to provide salary for 15 years, should be upheld and was not violating Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, this petition was dismissed. [Shilpa v. State of Haryana, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 152, dated 15-02-2019]