The judgment emphasizes the importance of considering the comparative hardship of the landlord and the tenant, establishing the genuineness of the landlord's need for the premises, and recognizing the limited scope of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.

1. Heard Sri M.A. Siddiqui, Advocate, for petitioner and Sri Manish Tandon, Advocate, appearing for respondents 3 and 4 who are landlords of accommodation in question namely House No. 99/11, Beconganj, Kanpur, Kanpur.

2. Respondent-landlords filed application i.e. Rent Case No. 60 of 1995 under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") seeking release of premises in question on the ground of personal need. The same was allowed by Prescribed Authority by order dated 27.5.1996 and the Rent Appeal of petitioner has been rejected by appellate Authority i.e. 16th Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar vide judgment dated 28.2.1998. Both these orders have been assailed in this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the respondent-landlords had alternative sufficient accommodation with them and, therefore, the Courts below have committed patent error in considering comparative hardship of landlord to be more pressed qua petitioner. This finding is illegal. It is said that respondent-landlords were already residing in House No. 97/255, Talaq Mohal, Kanpur and, therefore, they had an accommodation available for residence though petitioner has no other accommodation.

4. It is however, evident from the findings recorded by both the Courts below that House No. 97/255 was rented premises and the Courts below have observed that it would be highly unjust to landlord that he should be compelled to reside in a rented accommodation but his own accommodation should not be allowed to be released. This factor was taken into consideration by Courts below while determining comparative hardship, in my view rightly.

5. The further contention that landlords have another accommodation owned by them has been disbelieved by Courts below observing that the tenant placed nothing on record to prove his above contention. Courts below have taken into consideration peculiar facts of the case that families of landlord and tenants, both are sufficiently big and though tenant is occupying a part of premises in question and not entire premises, however, in order to accommodate entire family of landlord, entire accommodation is needed by them.

6. Where landlord himself is residing in a rented accommodation, this fact itself is relevant to prove the genuity of need of accommodation owned by landlord. (See: Jogendra Singh Bajaj (Dr.) and others Vs. 4th Addl. District Judge, Saharanpur and another 2005 (1) ARC 394).

7. While comparing the comparative hardship, point of view of landlord cannot be examined from point of view of of tenant since later obviously would be subjective having his own interest and cannot realise real problem of landlord in such matters. The Courts below have also observed that the entire building being quite old was not in good condition. Regarding availability of accommodation with landlord, tenant's contention has not been found proved by both the Courts below and those findings have not been shown perverse or contrary to record before this Court.

8. Moreover, nothing has been shown to demonstrate that tenant made any case that he will not be able to get any alternative accommodation in case release application is allowed or that he made genuine efforts to get another accommodation and such failure on the part of tenant has been held sufficient to decide question of hardship against the tenant, as is evident from Apex Court's decision in Badrinarayan Chunilal Bhutada Vs. Govindram Ramgopal Mundada AIR 2003 SC 2713.

9. While considering comparative hardship, there cannot be a rule of thumb to determine the same in a particular manner. It is cumulative effect of all the factors in connection with landlord and tenant, both, which shall determine as to whose hardship is more. Mere fact that a tenant would be ousted from premises by itself cannot be treated a hardship since this is the natural consequence if a decree

Click Here to Read the rest of this document