1976 Supreme(SC) 510

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.N. BHAGWATI, V.R. KRISHNA IYER AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.
Mohd. Shafi, Appellant
Versus
VII Addl. Dist and Sessions Judge, Allahabad and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 722 of 1976,
D/-16-12-1976.
Advocates appeared
M/s. K. P. Gupta, and B. B. Tawaklay, Advocates. for Appellant; M/s. S. P. Gupta, Pramod Swarup and Manoj Swarup, Advocates, for Respondent No. 3.

Headnote:

U. P. Rent Control & Eviction Act, 1947 - U. P. Urban Buildings Act, 1976 – Claim of compensation - Possession of a tenant - Prescribed Authority held that Explanation (iv) to Section 21 (1) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was attracted in the present case, since the ground floor of house constituted a building a part of which was under tenancy of appellant and the remaining part was in occupation of respondent No. 3 for residential purposes and hence it must be held to be conclusively established that the rented premises were bona fide required by respondent No. 3 - Prescribed Authority also went into the question of comparative hardship of the appellant and respondent No. 3 and observed that greater hardship would be caused to respondent No.3 by refusal of her application than what would be caused to appellant by granting it - On this view Prescribed Authority allowed the application of respondent No. 3 and released the rented premises in her favor - Appellant being aggrieved by the order passed by Prescribed Authority preferred an appeal to the District Court - District Court agreed with view taken by Prescribed Authority that Explanation (iv) to Section 21 (1) of U.P. Act was applicable to the facts of the present case and that fact conclusively proved that building was bona fide required by respondent No. 3. But on the question of greater hardship District Court disagreed with the conclusion reached by Prescribed Authority and held that appellant was likely to suffer greater hardship by granting application than what respondent No. 3 would suffer by its refusal - District Court accordingly allowed appeal and rejected application of respondent No. 3 for release of rented premises – Held, Construction would be more consistent with policy and intendment of the legislation which is to protect possession of tenant unless landlord establishes his bona fide requirement of the accommodation under tenancy – Court must set aside judgment of High Court as also order of the District Court and remand the case to District Court with a direction to dispose it of in the light of the interpretation placed by us on Explanation - It was contended before us on behalf of the appellant that since Explanation (iv) has been omitted by U. P. Act respondent No. 3 was no longer entitled to take advantage of it and her claim for possession must fail - But answer given by respondent No. 3 to this contention was that the omission of Explanation (iv) was prospective and not retrospective and since Explanation (iv) was in force at the date when respondent No. 3 filed her application for release she had a vested right to obtain release of rented premises in her favor by virtue of Explanation (iv) and that vested right was not taken away by the prospective omission hence she was entitled to rely on it despite its omission by U.P. Act - Court have not pronounced on these rival contentions since we think it would be better to leave it to District Court to decide which contention is correct - If District Court finds that by reason of omission of Explanation (iv) by U.P. Act respondent No. 3 is no longer entitled to rely on it to sustain her claim for release of the rented premises in her favor it will be unnecessary for District Court to examine the further question as to whether Explanation (iv) is attracted on the facts of the present case – If on other hand District Court finds that the omission of Explanation (iv) by U.P. Act being prospective and not retrospective, respondent No. 3 is entitled to avail of that Explanation District Court will proceed to decide whether the two tenements on the ground floor constituted one single unit of accommodation so as to attract the applicability of Explanation (iv) and for this purpose the District Court may if it so thinks necessary either take further evidence itself or require further evidence to be taken by the Prescribed Authority - If District Court finds that the case is covered by Explanation (iv) there would be question of examining comparative hardship of appellant and respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 3 would straightway be entitled to an order of release of rented premises in her favor - Appeal allowed