Back
2022 Supreme(SC) 1376
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.
Harish Kumar (since Deceased) Through: Lrs. – Appellant
Versus
Pankaj Kumar Garg – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 253 of 2022 (@ Out of Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 9501 of 2018)
Decided On : 07-03-2022
Mr. Anil Kumar Sangal, Senior Advocate, Mr. Siddharth Sangal, Advocate, Ms. Nilanjani Tandon, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. Dhananjay Garg, Advocate, For the Respondent.
The provision for release of premises based on bona fide requirement does not strictly require the landlord to be 'unemployed', but the requirement must be bona fide.
Headnote:
Bona Fide Requirement - Release of Premises - Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Section 21(1)(a)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought release of premises under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, stating the bona fide requirement for his unemployed son to start a business. The Appellate Authority accepted the appellant's plea, but the High Court dismissed the application based on the son's assessed income.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court's decision was overturned as the need pleaded by the appellant was found to be genuine and the comparative hardship was answered in favor of the appellant. The High Court was not justified in upsetting the finding of fact rendered by the Appellate Authority.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant's plea for release of premises based on bona fide requirement for his unemployed son was genuine and whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the provision for release of premises based on bona fide requirement does not strictly require the landlord to be 'unemployed', but the requirement must be bona fide. The need pleaded by the appellant was found to be genuine and was accepted by the appellate authority, which is the final fact-finding authority.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the High Court's decision was set aside, and the order passed by the Appellate Authority was restored. The respondent was granted time to vacate the premises subject to certain conditions.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the final judgment and order dated 19.12.2017 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand, Nainital in Writ Petition No.1754 of 2014 (M/S).
3. The appellant[1] preferred an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972[2] seeking release of the premises in possession of the respondent - tenant. The premises were described in the application as under:-
"A shop facing west in whose east, there is a passage-aabchak, road in west, shop of Trilok Chand Satija in the north and in the south, shop of Ramkishan Dass, Arvind Kumar situated in Mohalla Mehtan, Main Bazar, Jwalapur District:- Haridwar"
[1] Since deceased, represented by his legal heirs and represent alives.
[2] (the Act" for short) in its application to the State of Uttarakhand.
4. The ground on which release was sought was pleaded as under :-
"3. That the younger son of the Plaintiff Vertul Kumar whose age is approximately 24 years who has taken the education upto B. Com.. But despite making lots of effort he is not able to get the service and he is totally unemployed.
4. That the plaintiff has met with an accident approximately four years ago and there has been fracture in his right leg and he often keeps sick and due to this reason, he is not able to do the business. The son of the plaintiff is Vertul Kumar who has also been unemployed, due to this reason, there is tension in the house. The plaintiff wants to be free from his duty and responsibility by getting the business started for his son Vertul Kumar and wants to settle him but plaintiff does not have any property apart from the property in question in which he could settle him by getting his business started. The defendant does not have any requirement of the said shop. The shop is often closed and defendant mostly does the business of property dealing and he has occupied the property merely for name sake and he does not have any requirement of the property in question.
5. That the plaintiff wants to get his son Vertul Kumar settled by starting the business but the plaintiff does not have any other property apart of the property in question for starting the business for his son. Due to this reason, the plaintiff has immediate and legal and bonafide requirement of the property in question so that he could get his son settled by getting him in business and he could be relieved from his responsibility.
6. That because Vertul Kumar is unemployed, there is also problem in his marriage also not getting married."
5. In response to the aforestated application, the respondent submitted inter alia that after filing of said application seeking release, he had been searching for an appropriate place to shift his business but till the date of filing of the response, no proper place could be secured by the respondent.
6. The Prescribed Authority by its order dated 21.02.2011, rejected the application preferred by the appellant. However, in an appeal arising therefrom, the Appellate Authority by its order dated 30.06.2014, accepted the submissions made by the appellant and allowed the application for release preferred by the appellant. The Appellate Authority found that the bona fide requirement as pleaded by the appellant was genuine. The relevant observations of the Appellate Authority were:
"30. In this way on the basis of the entire analysis, the court is of the view in regard to the bona fide requirement of the plaintiff does not have any such place or property available with him in addition to the disputed property where the Plaintiff/Appellant could get the independent business for livelihood of his unemployed son. The Plaintiff has the right that he should make the proper place available to his unemployed son for establishing his business.
31. In this way on the basis of the entire analysis, the Court is of the view that the application for eviction of the disputed property has been filed by the plaintiff for est
