Back
J. J. MUNIR
Kusum Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Prescribed Authority/ Civil Judge (Sd), Shahjahanpur – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. This is a tenant's writ petition, challenging an order of release and eviction under Section 21(1)(a) of The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) (for short, ‘the Act’) passed concurrently by the two Authorities below.
2. Shyam Sundar Gupta moved an application for release and eviction under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act before the Prescribed Authority (Civil Judge, Sr. Div., Shahjahanpur), seeking release of the shop, detailed at the foot of the application and currently in the tenancy occupation of Smt. Kusum Lata, the petitioner. The application was moved by Shyam Sundar Gupta, hereinafter referred to as 'the landlord' with a case that the shop, subject matter of proceedings (for short, 'the demised shop') was exclusively owned by the landlord. The demised shop had fallen to the landlord's share in a family settlement on 24.04.1998, a fact admitted to Smt. Kusum Lata. Smt. Kusum Lata has, later on in proceedings before the Courts below, been referred to as Smt. Kusum Gupta. It is clarified that Smt. Kusum Lata and Smt. Kusum Gupta are one and the same person. For the sake of convenience, Smt. Kusum
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the landlord's bona fide need for the shop, the comparative hardship between the landlord and the tenant, and the lack of efforts by the tenan....
Point of Law : It is required on the part of petitioner to search accommodation after filing the release application and in the present case there is no dispute that the petitioner had never made any....
The court emphasized the importance of considering changed circumstances and the landlord's comparative hardship in determining the bona fide need for release applications.
Subsequent events can be taken note of. The High Court, even though referred to the relevance of the subsequent events erroneously came to the conclusion that even if the judgment and order passed by....
A landlord's bona fide need for premises does not require proof of dire necessity, and tenants must demonstrate efforts to find alternative accommodation to establish greater hardship.
Point of law: perusal of the provision, quoted above, shows that the following categories of persons fall within the meaning of landlord : (1) any person for the time being entitled to receive rent i....
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
