Back
Allahbad High Court
K.C.AGARWAL
Champa Kunwar Trust - Appellant
Versus
The District Judge, Rampur - Respondent
Decided On : 10/06/1975
UP URBAN BUILDINGS (REGULATION OF LETTING, RENT AND EVICTION) ACT, 1972 - SECTION 21 - BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT - INTERPRETATION - LANDLORD'S RIGHT TO DEMOLISH BUILDING FOR RECONSTRUCTION - CONDITIONS - JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Fact of the Case:
Champa Kunwar Trust, a public charitable trust, filed an application under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (the Act) for eviction of tenants occupying shops in its building. The Trust sought to demolish the building and reconstruct it for various charitable purposes, including a library, dispensary, and educational facilities. The Prescribed Authority and the District Judge allowed the application in part, granting eviction of some tenants but not others. The Trust and the affected tenants filed petitions challenging the orders.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Trust had established its bona fide requirement for the demolition and reconstruction of the building under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. The court interpreted the provision broadly, holding that the dilapidated condition of the building was not a necessary condition for obtaining eviction of tenants. The court also held that the District Judge erred in rejecting the Trust's application on the ground that it could satisfy its need for a library and dispensary at a different location. The court found that the Trust had the right to make the best use of its property and that the District Judge could not substitute his own opinion in this matter.
Issues: 1. Whether the Trust had established its bona fide requirement for the demolition and reconstruction of the building under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. 2. Whether the dilapidated condition of the building was a necessary condition for obtaining eviction of tenants under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. 3. Whether the District Judge erred in rejecting the Trust's application on the ground that it could satisfy its need for a library and dispensary at a different location.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Trust had established its bona fide requirement for the demolition and reconstruction of the building under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. The court interpreted the provision broadly, holding that the dilapidated condition of the building was not a necessary condition for obtaining eviction of tenants. The court reasoned that the provision was intended to cover cases where a landlord bona fide requires a building for demolition in order to fulfil its objects. 2. The court held that the dilapidated condition of the building was not a necessary condition for obtaining eviction of tenants under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act. The court reasoned that the provision was intended to cover cases where a landlord bona fide requires a building for demolition in order to fulfil its objects. 3. The court held that the District Judge erred in rejecting the Trust's application on the ground that it could satisfy its need for a library and dispensary at a different location. The court found that the Trust had the right to make the best use of its property and that the District Judge could not substitute his own opinion in this matter.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the Trust's petition and quashed the orders of the Prescribed Authority and the District Judge. The court directed that the Trust's application for eviction of the tenants be allowed in its entirety.
2. Champa Kunwar Trust is a public charitable trust created by one Srimati Champa Kunwar under a trust deed dated 1-2-1948. It owns a Dharamshala building including several shops constructed in the same premises situated in Bazar Safdarganj, Rampur. The Trust filed an application under Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, briefly stated as 'the Act', for eviction of the following tenants occupying different shops belonging to the Trust:
(i) Dr. Murari Lal Gupta (ii) Chiranji Lal (iii) Bannu Lal Chatwala (iv) Jagannath (v) Satya Prakash and Atma Prakash (vi) Shabban Hotelwala.
3. Amongst these tenants Satya Prakash and Atma Prakash were occupying the biggest shop having six doors on a rent of Rs. 75/- per month. The application was filed by the Trust on the ground that the objects of the trust were to provide residential facilities to travellers and pilgrims, medical facilities to the general public, educational facilities and to spread and propagate educational and cultural activities among general public. For the aforesaid purposes of the Trust and fulfilment of its objects the Trust wanted to construct the entire dharamshala building, including the shops, afresh with the funds raised from the public. But as its tenants mentioned above were not willing to vacate the premises, the Trust had to file the application for obtaining orders of ejectment against them.
4. The application was contested by all the tenants by means of separate written statements. They pleaded that neither the need of the Trust was bona fide nor was the building required to be reconstructed after demolition. They claimed that the Trust was a purely religious Trust having been created only for Dharamshala purposes. The object of the Trust would be completely frustrated if the Dharamshala building was demolished and reconstructed for the purposes mentioned in the application. Each one of them claimed that his need for the shop in his possession was greater than that of the landlord.
5. The prescribed authority repelled all the contentions raised on behalf of the tenants holding that the need of the Trust for reconstruction after demolition was genuine and that the same was required by it for its objects. After giving the above finding and deciding all other objections against the tenants, he proceeded to decide individual need of each of the tenants and compared the same with that of the Trust. On comparison he found that the need of the Trust was greater than those of tenants. With regard to Satya Prakash and Atma Prakash, he, however, held that as they were carrying on the shop for the last several years so it was necessary to leave a part of the accommodation in their possession to enable them to carry on their business in the disputed shop. On this view, the Prescribed Authority gave the area of two shops out of the six in their occupation. Consequently, the application of the Trust was partly allowed in respect of the area of four shops but was rejected for the rest of the area equivalent to two shops.
6. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Prescribed Authority all the tenants filed appeals under Section 22 of the Act before the District Judge on the grounds, inter alia; that the Prescribed Authority vas not justified in holding that the need of the Trust was greater as compared to them. The Trust also filed an appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority in so far as he rejected its application against Satya Prakash and Atma Prakash. The learned District Judge, who decided these appeals, dismissed all the appeals excepting the one preferred by Satya Prakash and Atma Prakash. This appeal was allowed in part. They were permitted to retain possession of the shop in their occupatio
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
