Back
J. J. MUNIR
Ram Kishor – Appellant
Versus
Mukesh Kumar Sahu – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
J.J. Munir, J.
This is a tenant's writ petition, arising out of an order of release passed 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) by both the Authorities below.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition are these :
An application under Section 21(1)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) ('the Act of 1972' for short) was moved by Mukesh Kumar Sahu against Ram Kishor, Ram Narayan Gupta, Brij Kishor alias Vijjan and Ballo, all sons of the late Radhey Shyam Gupta on allegations that Sahu was the owner and landlord of a shop bearing Municipal No. 198, situate at Mohalla Parwan, District Jhansi, where Ram Narayan Gupta and his three brothers, above named, were tenants at a rent of Rs. 16.56/- per month. Sahu said that he had no shop available with him to do business. He earned his livelihood, in the absence of a place of business, by selling mobile phone recharge vouchers for Airtel and Idea telecommunication service providers, moving from one shop to another for the purpose. According to the landlord, he w
The legal representatives of a deceased landlord can pursue eviction applications based on their own needs under Section 21(7) of the Act, even if the original need was personal.
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....
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....
The landlord's bona fide need for premises cannot be questioned by the tenant regarding alternative accommodation; the landlord is the sole arbiter of his needs.
The court established that a landlord's bona fide need for their property does not require absolute necessity, and long-term tenancy does not preclude eviction if the landlord's need is genuine.
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
