Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J. C. Gupta, J.
REMINGTON RAND OF INDIA LTD., MEERUT - Appellant
Versus
VTH ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 12429 Of 1980
Decided On : 07/21/1998
LANDLORD AND TENANT - U. P. URBAN BUILDINGS (REGULATION OF LETTING, RENT AND EVICTION) ACT, 1972 - SECTION 21(1)(A) - BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT - INTERPRETATION - COMPARATIVE HARDSHIP - GUIDELINES - APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord sought release of a shop from the tenant under Section 21(1)(a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, claiming bona fide requirement for her husband and youngest son to establish a business. The tenant contested the application, asserting that the husband was unemployed and physically incapable of running a business, and that the son was already engaged in business.
Finding of the Court:
The Prescribed Authority rejected the landlord's application, finding that the alleged need was neither genuine nor bona fide. The lower appellate court reversed this finding and allowed the release application.
Issues: 1. Whether the lower appellate court's finding on the issue of bona fide need suffers from any manifest error of law? 2. Whether the lower appellate court erred in its finding on the question of comparative hardship?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The lower appellate court's finding on the issue of bona fide need was flawed as it failed to consider the tenant's evidence that the landlord's husband was unemployed and physically incapable of running a business, and that the son was already engaged in business. The court also failed to consider the landlord's offer to sell the shop to the tenant shortly before filing the release application, which suggested that she did not genuinely need the shop for her husband's business. 2. The lower appellate court erred in its finding on the question of comparative hardship as it failed to consider whether the tenant would suffer substantial loss if compelled to shift its business to another shop. The court should have considered the tenant's goodwill and the fact that it was an old tenant.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the lower appellate court's order, and remanded the case for a fresh decision in accordance with the observations made in the judgment.
( 1 ) THIS is tenants petition.
( 2 ) AN application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was moved by the landlady-respondent No. 2 for the release of the shop in question, which is admittedly in the tenancy of the petitioner. The need shown therein was that the disputed shop is bona fide required by her husband and her youngest son Raj Kumar for establishing some business therein as both of them were unemployed, the husband having left the service at Delhi and the son having completed his studies. She has no other vacant shop with her, whereas the tenant being a big business concern could procure any other shop in the city of meerut and could shift their business, in case the application was not allowed, the landlady would suffer greater hardship than the tenant.
( 3 ) THE release application was contested by the tenant-petitioner on a number of grounds. It was denied that the husband and son of the landlady were unemployed. " It was asserted that the husband of the landlady was still working in Delhi and in any case he was unable to do any business because of his old age and physical incapacity. As regards the youngest son, Raj kumar, the petitioners case was that he was a partner in M/s. Annu Finance and was thus already engaged in business. M/s. Annu Finance is a family concern of the landlady and the family members were earning huge profits. It was further pleaded that if at all the husband and the son wished to set up a new business, they could do so in one of the rooms of their residential house. It was also alleged by the petitioner that the landlady did not require the shop in question but he merely wanted to sell the shop after getting it vacated. She herself had once offered It for sale to the petitioner in July, 1984 and it was also suggested that in case the petitioner was not Interested in the offer, it should increase the rent and when the tenant-petitioner expressed its inability to do either, the release application has been moved. The shop in question has been in the tenancy of the petitioner for the last about 34 years and the tenant has built up a goodwill. The landlady had with her three shops Including the disputed one and she sold out the other two shops which were adjacent to the disputed shop.
( 4 ) THE Prescribed Authority by the order dated 15. 12. 1988 rejected the landladys application holding that the alleged need of the landlady was neither genuine nor bona fide. The Prescribed authority did not proceed to make a comparison of the hardship of the parties as the finding on the main Issue of bona fide need had been decided against the landlady.
( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Prescribed Authority, the landlady filed appeal under Section 22 of the Act, which has been allowed by the Impugned order and Judgment dated 13. 4. 90 passed by respondent No. 1 and the release application of the landlady has been allowed.
( 6 ) COUNSEL for the parties were heard at length.
( 7 ) ON the examination of record and the Judgment of the lower appellate court, I am unable to uphold the same for the reasons detailed below.
( 8 ) THE first and foremost question for consideration in this writ petition is whether the finding of the lower appellate court reversing the finding of the Prescribed Authority on the Issue of bona fide need suffers from any manifest error of law? The landlady in her application came with a case that her husband Bhagwat Dayal Gupta was working as Packing Supervisor in a firm M/s. Mittal World Wide, New Delhi and prior to the filling of the release application, he left that Job and was unemployed. Her eldest son was carrying on business of finance in the name and style of M/s. Annu Finance. Second son Ashok Kumar was employed with M/s. Modi Rubber Ltd. , modipuram, Meerut while the third youngest son Raj Kumar after completing his education was still unemployed. The shop in question was, therefore, required for starti
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
