1. Eviction petition under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, based on bona fide need and comparative hardship. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1585
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar, JJ.
Saroj Porwar (dead) through lrs. – Appellant
Versus
Jugal Kishore And Another – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4382 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 18854 of 2021)
Decided on : 24-03-2025
The Court held that a landlord's plea for bona fide need for a family member justifies eviction under the U.P. Urban Buildings Act, 1972. Such need remains valid even if the specific family member changes, provided the requirement is genuine and not malafide.
Headnote:(A) U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Section 21(1)(a) - Landlord's bona fide need for premises - Appeal challenging High Court's affirmation of appellate court's decision reversing the Rent Controller's order allowing the eviction of tenant for bona fide purpose. (Paras 3, 4, 6, 8)
(B) Bona fide requirement - The court found the plea for the need of the premises to commence medical practice was genuine and the tenant's long-term use did not negate this claim. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The landlord sought eviction based on the alleged bona fide need for her daughter-in-law to establish a medical clinic, which was disputed by the tenant who had occupied the premises for many years. (Paras 4, 6)
Findings of Court:
The court reinstated the Rent Controller's order, validating the landlord's claim and allowing six months for the tenant to vacate. (Paras 9)
Issues: Whether the bona fide need for the premises exists following the death of the landlord's daughter-in-law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the need for the premises remained valid through the landlord's son, now seeking to establish a clinic, and deemed the tenant capable of finding alternative accommodation. (Paras 8)
Result: Appeal allowed, with a six-month period granted for the tenant to vacate the premises.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Landlord contends bona fide requirement for family member subsists; tenant argues the need abated following the death of the specific family member for whom premises were sought. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. Bona fide need for a family member remains valid when another qualified family member requires the premises for professional practice and care of elderly parents. (Para 8 )
4. Bona fide requirement for a family member does not necessarily abate upon the death of the original intended occupant if another family member's need is genuine. (Para 8 )
5. Appeal allowed; orders of High Court and appellate authority set aside; Rent Controller's eviction order restored with six months' time granted to tenant to vacate. (Para 9 , 10 )
6. Does the death of the specific family member for whom premises were sought automatically abate the landlord's claim of bona fide need?
No. If another family member has a genuine requirement for the premises—such as starting a professional practice or caring for elderly parents—the plea of bona fide need can still be sustained and is not necessarily construed as malafide. (Para 8 )
7. How does the court evaluate comparative hardship when a tenant has occupied premises for a long duration?
Long-term occupation may be viewed as providing the tenant sufficient time and opportunity to search for and secure alternate accommodation, which can outweigh the hardship of eviction when the landlord's need is bona fide. (Para 8 )
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant, who is the landlord, is questioning the judgment dated 1.9.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition-A No. 20137 of 2010 wherein the High Court affirmed the judgment dated 16.01.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ferozabad in P.A. Appeal No. 65 of 2008 which reversed the order passed by the Rent Controller.
3. The parties are referred to as per the rank before the rent controller. The petitioner landlord filed a petition under Section 21 (1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 on the ground of bona fide need and comparative hardship which came to be allowed and said order dated 18.07.2008 passed by the Rent Controller came to be reversed by the appellate court and confirmed by the High Court. Hence, this appeal.
4. The Rent Controller had accepted the plea of bona fide need of the landlady, namely, that daughter-in-law being a qualified doctor was in need of the suit schedule premises for setting up her clinic. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence tendered by the parties, the prescribed authority (Civil Judge) allowed the petition, which was reversed by the appellate authority by order dated 16.1.2010 on the ground that the daughter-in-law of the appellant is employed as Demonstrator in the Department of Biochemistry and is a resident of Dehradun where her husband is also working and there are no bonafides in the claim of the appellant. It was also held by the appellate authority that respondent is engaged in the business of sale of Rasgulla for the past 40 years and it is his only source of income and in the scale of comparative hardship, the eviction, if ordered, would cause more hardship to the tenant. The High Court confirmed the said order of the appellate authority by opining that the return of the daughter-in-law of the appellant to Ferozabad is unlikely as her husband is an Associate Professor and working at Himalaya Institute Hospital Trust, Dehradun.
5. During the course of these proceedings the appellant expired and her legal representatives have been brought on record. It is also not in dispute that Dr. Preeti Chaturvedi, who was daughter-in-law of the deceased appellant has also expired during the pendency of the present proceedings and the affidavit of her husband, namely, son of the deceased landlady dated 23.1.2025 filed in these proceedings would disclose that he is aged about 58 years and is working as Professor in Department of Physiology, Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, Dehradun. He has specifically pleaded in his affidavit that the shop let out to the respondent-tenant is genuinely required or needed for the purpose of starting his private medical practice and he propose to resign and start medical practice by relocating to Ferozabad. He has also deposed that he intends to start the clinic after tendering resignation by forwarding his intentment to retire with three months' notice to his employer. It is also his plea that most of the clinics are located in the Sadar Bazar area of Ferozabad, namely, in the vicinity of the suit schedule premises and as such he intends to set up his clinic in suit scheduled premises. His only daughter is studying at United States of America and as such he intends to relocate. He pleads that his father who is aged 85 years is to be taken care of and for this reason also, he intends to relocate and commence his medical practice by establishing a clinic in the suit schedule premises.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has reiterated the averments made in the said affidavit and the pleadings laid before the courts below to contend that the bona fide requirement of the appellants still subsists and has not vanished.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would vehemently contend that it was the specific plea of the deceased-appellant that she would require the suit schedule premises to enable her da
