Back
High Court of Allahabad
A.B. Srivastava, J.
Jagannath Bhatia
Vs.
ADJ Bareilly
Decided On : 22.11.1994
U.P. URBAN BUILDINGS (REGULATION OF LETTING, RENT AND EVICTION) ACT, 1972 - SECTION 21 - RELEASE OF ACCOMMODATION - BONA FIDE NEED - APPLICABILITY OF EXPLANATION (IV) TO SECTION 21 - LEGISLATION BY REFERENCE - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - COMPARATIVE HARDSHIP.
Fact of the Case:
Landlord filed a release application under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, seeking release of accommodation in the tenancy of the respondents. The landlord claimed that he required the accommodation for his personal occupation as he had been ordered to vacate his previous accommodation by a release order affirmed by the High Court. The respondents resisted the application, contending that the landlord's need was not bona fide and that they would suffer hardship if the release was allowed.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the provisions of the Act as they stood on the date of its application to the cantonments in the State of Uttar Pradesh would continue to apply despite subsequent deletion of the said explanation by U.P. Act 28 of 1976. The court also held that the landlord had a bona fide and pressing need for additional accommodation for occupation by himself and his family members, and that the authorities below erred in rejecting his claim.
Issues: 1. Whether the amended Section 21 of the Act is applicable to the cantonment areas. 2. Whether the landlord has a bona fide and pressing need for additional accommodation.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the provisions of the Act as they stood on the date of its application to the cantonments in the State of Uttar Pradesh would continue to apply despite subsequent deletion of the said explanation by U.P. Act 28 of 1976. The court reasoned that the Act was adopted as a whole as the statute governing regulation of letting and eviction in respect of cantonments in the State, and that being a legislation by reference, the provisions of the Act as in force from time to time would thus be the law applicable to cantonment areas also. 2. The court held that the landlord had a bona fide and pressing need for additional accommodation for occupation by himself and his family members. The court reasoned that the landlord had been ordered to vacate his previous accommodation by a release order affirmed by the High Court, and that his need for additional accommodation was not fanciful or merely because he stated to be requiring some part of the accommodation for storing some of his goods in connection with his work of military contract.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the finding of the authorities below on the question of bona fide need, and held that the landlord petitioner has a bona fide and pressing need of additional accommodation for occupation by himself and his family members. The court also quashed the order of the appellate authority dismissing the petitioner's appeal and remanded the appeal to the learned appellate authority to decide in accordance with law the question of comparative hardship and dispose of the appeal on merit.
A.B. Srivastava, J.
1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner landlord has sough quashing of an order, dated 23-7-1980 of the prescribed authority, Bareilly rejecting his application for release of the accommodation in the tenancy of the respondents Nos. 3 to 6, and the order, dated 15-7-1981 of the Additional District Judge Bareilly, dismissing his appeal.
2. Release application was filed by the petitioner under Section 21 of Act 13 of 1972 on the ground that while working as a contractor from 1971 in District Shahjahanpur, the petitioner along with his family has been residing in a rented accommodation No. 14 Subhash Road, Shahajahanpur Cantonment. The landlord of the said house filed release application which was allowed despite the petitioner contesting upto High Court stage, the judgment of the High Court being, dated 9-4-1979, the petitioner thereupon had to shift with his family to Bareilly and is living in a portion of the same house which is in the tenancy of the respondents. The petitioner maintains a car, servant and also cattle and requires the accommodation in the tenancy of the respondents to live according to his status. The accommodation being situated in cantonment area, the original unamended provisions of Act 13 of 1972 regarding release of the accommodation which is part of building occupied by the landlord is applicable. The respondent Nos. 3 and 6 are the tenants of a portion of first floor, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are the tenants of a portion of the ground floor, the remaining portions of the two floors being in possession of the petitioner, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in fact now (sic) not reside in this accommodation rather are residing in New Delhi where respondent No. 3 is employed
The release application was resisted by the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 6 on the ground that the need set up by the petitioner is not bona fide or genuine. The petitioner is in the habit of making such a move merely with a view to increase the rent, the respondents are tenants in this premises since more than 30 years, the respondent No 4 is personally occupying her portion and respondent No. 5 also often comes and stays in this house, the petitioner has not correctly shown the various portions of the house and that great hardship will be caused to the petitioners if the release is allowed.
3. Rejecting the plea of landlord regarding application of explanation (iv) to Section 21 as contained in unamended Act 13 of 1972 to be applicable, the prescribed authority held that the landlord does not bonafide require the accommodation in the tenancy of the respondents for his personal occupation rather, he needs for commercial purpose which is not permissible. The needs of the respondent tenants is hard pressing. He accordingly rejected the release application. The appellate authority dismissed the petitioner's appeal.
4. Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard.
The question raised at the outset on behalf of the petitioner is regarding the applicability of explanation (iv) to Section 21. It is contended that the provisions of Act 13 of 1972 as they stood on the date of its application to the cantonments in the State of Uttar Pradesh, would continue to apply despite subsequent deletion of the said explanation by U.P. Act 28 of 1976.
5. When the provisions of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 were made applicable to the cantonment areas by the Central Government vide S.R.O. 259, dated 1-9-1973 published in the Gazette of India, dated 29-9-1973, it was an instance of legislation by reference and not by incorporation. Here the Act No. 13 of 1972 was as a whole adopted as the statute governing regulation of letting and eviction in respect of cantonments in the State. Being a legislation by reference the provisions of Act 13 of 1972 as in force from time to time would thus be the law applicable to cantonment areas also.
6. The reasonings of the two courts below that the release application having been filed before an authorit
AI
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
