SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Markandey Katju & Gyan Sudha Misra, JJ.
Mehmood Rahmat Ullah Khan & Anr.
Vs.
Niyaz Ahmad Khan
Civil Appeal No. 1264 of 2009 With Civil Appeal No. 1073 of 2009
Decided On : 23 February, 2011
Writ Petition - Landlord-Tenant Dispute - High Court cannot interfere with finding of fact regarding bonafide need and cannot enhance rent under Section 21
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a landlord, filed a Petition under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Building Act, 1972 alleging bonafide need of the premises. The prescribed authority rejected the Petition, but the High Court allowed the Writ Petition by increasing the rent.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the High Court cannot interfere with the finding of fact regarding bonafide need and cannot enhance rent under Section 21. It set aside the impugned Judgment and upheld the First Appellate Court's decision rejecting the Petition under Section 21.
Issues: Interference with finding of fact regarding bonafide need, enhancement of rent under Section 21
Ratio Decidendi: High Court cannot interfere with finding of fact regarding bonafide need and cannot enhance rent under Section 21
Final Decision: The impugned Judgment was set aside, the First Appellate Court's decision was upheld, and the direction increasing rent was set aside.
ORDER
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1264 OF 2009
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned Judgment dated 8.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Allahabad.
3. The appellant herein is a landlord of premises in question and the respondent is the tenant. The appellant filed a Petition under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Building Act, 1972 alleging that he has bonafide need of the premises and hence the tenant should be evicted. The prescribed authority found that the landlord could not establish his bonafide need and hence it rejected the Petition. The tenant filed an appeal and the Appellate Court has upheld the finding that there is no bonafide need of the premises of the landlord.
4. Surprisingly, the High Court while upholding the finding that there is no bonafide need of the landlord has allowed the Writ Petition by the impugned Judgment dated 8.10.2007 by increasing the rent.
5. It is well settled that a High Court in Writ Petition cannot interfere with the finding of fact, regarding bonafide need.
6. We are also of the opinion that under Section 21, there is no question of enhancement of rent. That may be done under some other provision of the Act.
7. Accordingly, we dispose of this appeal with the direction that the impugned Judgment is set aside and Judgment of First Appellate Court rejecting the Petition under Section 21 is upheld. The direction increasing rent is set aside.
8. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1073 OF 2009
9. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned Judgment dated 8.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Allahabad.
10. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence we are not repeating the same here.
11. Under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings Act, 1972, the prescribed authority can either allow the Petition for eviction of the tenant or it can refuse to do so. It cannot enhance the rent under those proceedings. Hence, we set aside the impugned Judgment of the High Court.
12. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.