Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ALOK MATHUR, J.
Vijay Kumar Banswar - Petitioner
Versus
Awadesh Kumar Jaisawal - Respondent
Writ - A No. 6728 of 2023
Decided On : 23-11-2023
Eviction - Bonafide Need - U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Section 21(1)(a)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller and the District Judge, claiming that the respondent did not have a bonafide need for the shop in question. The respondent sought eviction under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act, 1972, stating the shop was required for his unemployed son's furniture business.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent had established a bonafide need for the shop to start a furniture business for his unemployed son, and the petitioner's objections were not substantiated. The court also rejected the petitioner's claim of no bonafide need of the respondent or his son.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent had a bonafide need for the shop under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, and whether the petitioner's objections were valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of 'bona fide' need as established in Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta and B.C. Bhutada v. G.R. Mundada. It emphasized that the landlord's need must be genuine and sincere, and the requirement must imply an element of necessity. The court also upheld the landlord's right to decide how to live and arrange his business.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's claims, and directed the landlord to pay Rs.25,000 as compensation to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondents.
2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.12.2022 passed by Rent Controller and also the order dated 24.04.2023 passed by District Judge Kheri rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of Rent Controller.
3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner entered into a tenancy in respect of a shop measuring 18 sq. meter situated at Mela Road-Dwarikapuri, Lakhimpur, Pargana & District – Kheri by way of oral agreement with one Chandrachud Singh Rathore. In the tenanted premises, the petitioner has a small machine parts business, selling machine ware, oil, lubricant and auto parts for pump, diesel generator sets vehicles form the shop in question continuously since 1986 i.e. since last 37 years.
4. The respondent had purchased the said property from the original landlord on 02.03.2013 and subsequently the petitioner paid rent to the respondent. On 08.01.2020, the respondent has filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 on the ground that the said shop was required for the bonafide need of his son who is unemployed and wanted that shop for starting a business. It was further stated that the other shops owned by the respondent were not available for running of the business as they have been let out on temporary basis.
5. The petitioner had appeared and filed his objections before the Rent controller and resisted the application for eviction. It was stated that there were no bonafide need of the respondent or his son and it has not been stated as to what kind of business would be commenced in the disputed property and it is also stated that respondent had several other vacant shops to start his independent business and consequently prayed for setting aside the application filed by the respondent under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act.
6. The Rent Controller by means of order dated 13.12.2022 allowed the application preferred by the respondent and directed the petitioner to vacate the shop in question within 30 days from the date of order. The Rent Controller came to a finding that the petitioner has admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondent. He also considered the bonafide need of the respondent and also considered the comparative hardship. He considered the fact that the said shop was required by the landlord for the purpose of establishing a business for his son and that he had no other place apart from the said shop to start the said business. With regard to the claim of the petitioner goodwill of running the said shop from the particular place, the said plea was rejected on the ground that it was always open for the petitioner to establish his business elsewhere and the goodwill would be created at the new place of business and, accordingly allowed the application.
7. In appeal, the District Judge went through the entire evidence at the behest of the petitioner. He considered the fact that six months notice was given to the petitioner by the respondent for vacating the said shop and on expiry of the said period on 03.01.2020 the suit for eviction was filed. He also considered the objection of the petitioner against the application for eviction filed by the respondent.
8. With regard to the objection of the petitioner that the respondent had not given adequate opportunity and the reasons for the bonafide requirement, it was concluded that the respondent in his statement has stated that two shops which are owned by him are not vacant and are occupied by tenant and are accordingly not available for starting the business of his son. He also considered the fact that petitioner had not sought or made any effort to find an alternate accommodation. He considered the fact that from the material on record, it is clear that son of the respondent, namely, Himanshu Banswar is an un
The central legal point established is that for eviction under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, the landlord must demonstrate a genuine and necessary need for the premises, and the court will respect the....
The court reinforced that tenants must demonstrate bona fide issues to contest eviction based on landlord's genuine need, while the eviction process remains expedited under the summary provisions of ....
The landlord's bona fide requirement for the tenanted premises is to be judged based on preference and suitability for the intended business, and the employment status of dependent family members doe....
The landlord's bonafide requirement for the premises and the landlord's right to choose a suitable premise for carrying on the business are key legal principles established in the judgment.
The landlord's genuine need for tenanted premises, the tenant's burden to provide specific and supported averments, and the landlord's authority to prioritize family needs over tenant's hardship.
The main legal point established is that the landlord's bona fide need for the premises, as per Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, was proven, and the tenant's claim of availability of a....
The landlord's bona fide need and the absence of suitable alternative accommodation for the tenant are crucial factors in determining eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Pre-amendment eviction petitions from non-residential premises maintainable retrospectively due to Supreme Court on Article 14 violation. Landlord's bonafide need for prime own shops upheld despite r....
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
