Back
2012 (1) Supreme 62
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Aftab Alam and Ranjana Prakash Desai, JJ.
Mohd. Ayub & anr. — Appellants
versus
Mukesh Chand — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4495 of 2006
Decided on : 5-1-2012
Facts of the Case :
A.An Application was filed by appellants/landlords herein in the instant case for eviction of respondent/tenant on ground that they bona fide required the premises occupied by respondent to start business for their sons.Said application was Dismissed by Prescribed Authority. Appeal thereagainst was also Dismissed. Writ petition thereagainst was Partly allowed by High Court directing that only one room out of four rooms should be handed over to appellants by respondent.
B. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
A. No reason was given by High Court as to why only partial relief was being granted to appellants. In fact, it had not discussed issue of comparative hardship at all.Nothing on record to suggest that appellants’ present business was more flourishing than the business which they proposed to start in the leased premises. All the three sons of appellants were educated but unemployed. They wanted to start business in the premises in occupation of respondent. Thirteen members of appellants’ family were living in three rooms and one verandah with great difficulty. As against that respondent’s family consisted of four persons and there were four rooms in his possession.
B. There was nothing on record to show that appellants owned other premises. Courts below were swayed by fact that financial position of appellants was better than respondent. Nothing on record to show that during the pendency of this litigation respondent made any genuine efforts to find out any alternative accommodation.
C. Perverse findings of courts below on the aspect of comparative hardship was held liable be set aside. Direction was given to respondent to handover possession of all rooms in his occupation to appellants. Appeal was disposed of.
JUDGMENT
(Smt.) Ranjana Prakash Desai, J.
1. This appeal, by grant of special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.9.2005 passed by the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital partly allowing the Writ Petition No. 296 of 2004 filed by the appellants.
2. The appellants/landlords filed an application under Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short, ‘the U.P Act’) for eviction of the respondent/tenant on the ground that they bona fide required the premises occupied by the respondent to start business for their sons.
3. According to the appellants when the house in question was purchased by them the respondent was occupying two shops facing the road and two rooms situate at the rear of the said shops as a tenant of the previous landlord at the rent of Rs.35/- per month. These rooms are situated on the ground floor of the said building. The respondent continued to occupy the said rooms as tenant at the same rent. It is the case of the appellants that the first appellant is carrying on business in three small stalls situated in a shop of the Cantonment Council, the rent of which keeps increasing. The three sons of the appellants aged 23, 28 and 19 years are unemployed. Two sons want to start general merchant business in one shop and the third son wants to start wholesale egg business in the other shop. The appellants’ family consists of 13 members. Their one son is married and has three children and the two other sons are of a marriageable age. The married son wants to live in the room behind the shop. Presently, the appellants’ family is living in three rooms and a verandah with great difficulty. On these grounds the appellants filed the application for release of the rooms in occupation of the respondent.
4. In response, the respondent inter alia contended that he is conducting photography business from the said shops for many years; that he is enjoying goodwill in the area; that he will find it difficult to get premises in the same area; that appellants are financially well off as compared to him; that they own other properties and that greater hardship would be caused to the respondent if the decree of eviction is passed than that would be caused to the appellants if it is not passed.
5. The Prescribed Authority dismissed the application holding inter alia that the appellants are financially sound and other properties were available to them whereas except the suit shops the respondent does not have any place for residence and business and hence, if he is evicted from the shops in his occupation, he will experience more difficulty. The appeal carried from the said judgment was dismissed by the District Court holding inter alia that financial position of the appellants is far better than that of the respondent. They could have purchased a vacant bungalow and started business for their sons. Learned District Judge held that the appellants have purchased the building to make profit and then filed the application for eviction. According to learned District Judge, the respondent was doing business from the said shops for many years and it would be difficult for him to find a place for business. Hardship caused to the respondent would be more.
6. While disposing of the petition filed by the appellants the High Court rightly held that the landlord cannot be dictated by the tenant what business his sons should do and the observations made by the courts below to that effect and the findings reached by the courts below on bona fide requirement of thelandlord are perverse. However, without going into the aspect of comparative hardship, the High Court directed that only one room out of the four rooms should be handed over to the appellants by the respondent as from the affidavit it appears that the respondent was using it as a passage. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have approached this Court.
7. Shri Vijay Hansaria, learned s
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
