Back
2004 Supreme(UK) 396
2005 UAD 244
UTTARANCHAL HIGH COURT
R.Tandon
Ramesh Chandra (Sri) And Anr.
Vs
Ist Additional District Judge And Ors.
Writ Petition No. 81 (MS) of 2002
Decided on : 22/12/2004
The bona fide need of the landlord is a key factor in determining whether an eviction order should be granted.
Headnote:
The Cantonment (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957 extends the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 to all the cantonments in the state of Uttar Pradesh with certain modifications. The Act applies to residential and non-residential buildings, but not to houses appropriated by the Central Government on lease under the Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1923. The bona fide need of the landlord is a key factor in determining whether an eviction order should be granted. The landlord must demonstrate that he genuinely requires the premises for his own use or for the use of a family member or other person for whom he is responsible. The landlord's need must be greater than the hardship that the eviction would cause to the tenant. In this case, the landlord had retired from his job and wanted to start a typing institute in the premises. The tenant had several other shops available to him in the same area. The courts found that the landlord's need was greater than the tenant's hardship and granted an eviction order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were tenants in a shop owned by the respondent. The respondent filed an application for eviction of the petitioners on the ground that he required the premises for his personal use and occupation. The petitioners contested the application, claiming that they had no other place to run their business and that the respondent had other shops available to him. The Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority both granted eviction orders against the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the Cantonment (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957 extended the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 to all the cantonments in the state of Uttar Pradesh with certain modifications. The Act applied to residential and non-residential buildings, but not to houses appropriated by the Central Government on lease under the Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1923. The High Court also found that the bona fide need of the landlord was a key factor in determining whether an eviction order should be granted. The landlord must demonstrate that he genuinely requires the premises for his own use or for the use of a family member or other person for whom he is responsible. The landlord's need must be greater than the hardship that the eviction would cause to the tenant. In this case, the High Court found that the landlord had retired from his job and wanted to start a typing institute in the premises. The tenant had several other shops available to him in the same area. The High Court found that the landlord's need was greater than the tenant's hardship and granted an eviction order.
Issues: 1. Whether the Cantonment (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957 extended the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 to all the cantonments in the state of Uttar Pradesh? 2. Whether the Act applied to residential and non-residential buildings? 3. Whether the Act applied to houses appropriated by the Central Government on lease under the Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1923? 4. Whether the bona fide need of the landlord was a key factor in determining whether an eviction order should be granted? 5. Whether the landlord must demonstrate that he genuinely requires the premises for his own use or for the use of a family member or other person for whom he is responsible? 6. Whether the landlord's need must be greater than the hardship that the eviction would cause to the tenant?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Yes, the Cantonment (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957 extended the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 to all the cantonments in the state of Uttar Pradesh with certain modifications. 2. Yes, the Act applied to residential and non-residential buildings. 3. No, the Act did not apply to houses appropriated by the Central Government on lease under the Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1923. 4. Yes, the bona fide need of the landlord was a key factor in determining whether an eviction order should be granted. 5. Yes, the landlord must demonstrate that he genuinely requires the premises for his own use or for the use of a family member or other person for whom he is responsible. 6. Yes, the landlord's need must be greater than the hardship that the eviction would cause to the tenant.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the eviction order.
Rajesh Tandon, J.
Heard Sri Arvind Vashisth, Counsel for the petitioners and Sri. B.P. Nautiyal and Sri Hari Mohan Bhatia, Counsel for the respondents.
FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:-
1. By the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari praying for quashing the order 13th June, 1997 (Annexure 9) passed by the Prescribed Authority/1 st Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dehradun passed in P.A. Case No. 5 of 1988 and judgment an order dated 7.2.2002 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Dehradun in Rent Control Appeal No. 63 of 1997.
2. Briefly stated, the application was filed under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in respect of the shop situate in 487 Dakra Bazar, Dehradun at the rate of Rs. 8/- per month. In Paragraph 3 of the application, it was stated by the respondent No. 3 Sri Chandra Shekhar that the premises is in a dilapidated condition and the landlord has got prepared a map according to the regulations of the Cantonment Board.
3. In Paragraph 6 of the application, it has been mentioned that on 31st August, 2002, he has retired and after his retirement he has no place to run his own business and he will start the typing institute in the in the premises and as such, the shop is required for his personal use and occupation as well as after demolition and new construction.
4. A written statement was filed by the petitioners denying the averments contained in the application. The petitioners have also filed the additional written statement stating therein that property No. 489 was in possession of landlord and the same is available to him.
5. Both the Courts below have granted the decree for eviction against the petitioners hence the present writ petition has been filed.
6. Counsel for the petitioners Sri Arvinda Vashishtha has vehemently urged inter alia that the Act No. 13 of 1972 is not applicable to the cantonment area. So far as non residential accommodation is concerned, the bona fide need of the landlord has not been correctly decided according to the pleadings in the written statement as well as in the additional written statement, the petitioners shall suffer greater hardship rather than the landlord.
Applicability of the Act to the Cantonment Area:-
7. Counsel for the petitioner has substituted that the premises in dispute is not centered under U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 being situate in the cantonment area.
8. The plea with regard to the applicability of Act No. 13 of 1972 is concerned to the Cantonment Board, the said plea was never taken before the Prescribed Authority. However, (The) Cantonment (Extension of Rent Control Laws) Act, 1957 provides as under:-
3. Power to extend to cantonments laws relating to control of rents and regulation of house accommodation.-- ((1) The Central Government, may by notification in the Official Gazette, to any cantonment with such restrictions and modifications and it thinks fit, any enactment to the control of rent and regulation of house accommodation which is in force.)******* the State in which the cantonment is situated.
Provided that nothing contained in any enactment so extended shall apply to,--
(c) any house within the cantonment which is, or may be, appropriated by the Central Government on lease under the Cantonments (House Accommodation) Act, 1923.
(4) Where before the extension to a cantonment of any enactment relating to the control of rent and regulations of house accommodation therein (hereafter referred to as the "Rent Control Act"),-
(i) any decree or order for the regulation of or for eviction from any house accommodation in that cantonment, or
(ii) any order in the proceedings for the execution of such decree or order; or
(iii) any order relating to the control of rent or other incident of such house accommodation,
was made by any Court, tribunal or other authority in accordance with any law for the control of rent and regulation of house accommodation for the time being in force in the State in which such cantonme
