Back
AJIT KUMAR
Anis – Appellant
Versus
Vaibhav Goyal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ajit Kumar, J.
1. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vinay Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. These four petitions are by four separate tenants of the same landlord and were proceeded with for release/eviction in respect of the tenanted shops under Section 21(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (in short 'Act') on same grounds. The order of eviction has been passed in respect of all the tenants by separate orders passed by the rent authority that were unsuccessfully challenged in rent appeal. Hence these four petitions are filed both against the order of rent authority as well as of appellate Tribunal. Since these petitions raise common question of fact and law, therefore, they are heard and decided together.
3. There is no dispute between the petitioners and the landlord regarding jural relationship of tenant-landlord. The landlord came to file release application under Section 21(2) of the Act basically on the plea that behind the four shops with Chabutra in question there is an open space of land belonging to landlord which he wanted to
The landlord's right to evict tenants for personal use and reconstruction under Section 21(2) of the Act is upheld, with procedural objections deemed waived due to lack of timely challenge.
Landlord only needs to demonstrate requirement for personal occupation under Section 21(2)(m) of the Act, 2021, without needing to prove bona fide necessity or comparative hardship.
Point of law : Since there is no bar under law upon the landlord in filing the release application, for which he is not even required to serve a notice under Section 21 of the Act of 1972 upon the te....
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.
The landlord is the best judge of his requirement and the tenant cannot dictate the landlord as to how and in what manner he should live. The availability of other vacant shops, as pleaded by the ten....
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.
Point of Law : Once a tenant has himself got a residential accommodation, or through any member of his family who has been normally residing with him or is wholly dependent on him, in a vacant state,....
Landlords are entitled to seek eviction based on personal necessity and change of user, and tenant's unauthorized use undermines property value, justifying eviction.
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
