Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Sangram Singh Chaudhary - Petitioner
Versus
Musharaf Ali Ansari - Respondent
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1552 of 2023
Decided On : 24-07-2023
RENT CONTROL - RELEASE APPLICATION - MAINTAINABILITY - FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 21 (1) (A) OF ACT NO. 13 OF 1972 - EXPLANATION (I) TO SECTION 21 (1) (A) TO BE READ WITH SECTION 12 (1) (C) OF ACT NO. 13 OF 1972 - BONA FIDE NEED - COMPARATIVE HARDSHIP - SCOPE OF INTERFERENCE UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:
The landlord filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972, seeking release of the tenanted accommodation for his personal need and to accommodate his family. The tenant opposed the application, contending that the release application was not maintainable due to the bar created by the first proviso to Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act, and that he had a more bona fide need for the accommodation. The Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Court dismissed the tenant's appeal, confirming the release of the tenement in favor of the landlord.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the release application was maintainable as the first proviso to Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act was not attracted, since the landlord had issued notices to the tenant prior to the institution of the proceedings under Section 21 of the Act. The Court also held that the tenant's defense was prohibited by Explanation (i) to Section 21 (1) (a) to be read with Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act, as the tenant's son had constructed a building within the same municipal area. Further, the Court found that the tenant had not made any effort to look for an alternative accommodation, and therefore, his need could not be held to be bona fide. The Court also held that the concurrent finding of facts by the Courts below could not be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as there was no perversity in the findings.
Issues: 1. Whether the release application was maintainable in light of the first proviso to Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act? 2. Whether the tenant's defense was prohibited by Explanation (i) to Section 21 (1) (a) to be read with Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act? 3. Whether the tenant had a more bona fide need for the accommodation? 4. Whether the High Court could interfere with the concurrent finding of facts by the Courts below under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The first proviso to Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act creates a bar on the landlord from initiating proceedings under Section 21 (1) (a) within a period of three years from the date of purchase of the building. However, the institution of proceedings after the purchase and within the expiry of the period of three years is not barred under law. The only aspect which is required to be considered is that the actual release of the said accommodation has to be made only after the expiry of three years period from the date of purchase by the landlord. 2. Explanation (i) to Section 21 (1) (a) to be read with Section 12 (1) (c) of the Act provides that where the tenant or any member of his family has built or otherwise acquired a residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area, no objection by the tenant against an application under Section 21 (1) (a) shall be entertained. 3. The burden of proof lies on the tenant to establish that he has a more bona fide need for the accommodation than the landlord. In the absence of any evidence to establish a more bona fide need, the presumption would be that the need of the tenant was not at all bona fide. 4. The High Court's power of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited. The Court cannot interfere with the concurrent finding of facts by the Courts below unless there is a perversity in the findings to the extent that no judicious person can ever reach to such a conclusion.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the tenant's Writ Petition, upholding the concurrent finding of facts by the Courts below and confirming the release of the tenement in favor of the landlord.
JUDGMENT :
The present Writ Petition has been preferred by the petitioner/tenant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, over the concurrent judgments dated 24th July, 2018, as it was rendered by the learned Trial Court / Civil Judge (Senior Division)/ Prescribed Authority, Pauri Garhwal, in Rent Control Case No. 6 of 2013, Musharaf Ali Ansari Vs. Sangram Singh Chaudhary, whereby, in a proceeding held under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972, the release application preferred by the respondent / landlord, has been allowed. On a further challenge being given to the judgment of the Prescribed Authority before the Appellate Court of the District Judge, Pauri Garhwal, under Section 22 of the Act No. 13 of 1972, in Rent Control Appeal No. 56 of 2018, Sangram Singh Chaudhary (now deceased), who is herein now represented through his heirs of late Musharaf Ali Ansari, the Appeal thus preferred by the petitioner/tenant, has been dismissed by the Appellate Court, thereby confirming the release of the tenement, in question, in favour of the landlord / respondent.
2. Brief facts as involved in the case are, that the tenement, in question, of which, the respondent is the landlord, is situated in Ward No. 4, Jail Gadhera, House No. 248, Khet No. 104, having a bandobasti No. 136, which constitutes of two Khani shops situated on the ground floor and a residential accommodation located on the first floor constituting of two rooms and a toilet, which was under the tenancy of the present petitioner. It was when the landlord / respondent felt the necessity for the release of the accommodation, it is contended by the respondent /landlord, and as also apparent from the records, that notice under the 1st proviso to Section 21 (1) (a) of Act No. 13 of 1972, was issued by the respondent / landlord on 11th April, 2012, giving an intimation to the petitioner/tenant to vacate the premises, as the same was required for his personal need and to accommodate his family in the residential accommodation situated on the first floor.
3. In the notice, thus issued, it was contended that the property, in question, was initially purchased by late Mr. Mangal Singh, the father of the landlord, from one Mr. Anand Singh, as back as in March, 2011.
4. It was further contended by the landlord, that immediately at the time of purchase itself, late Mr. Mangal Singh, had informed the tenant about the so called purchase by Mr. Musharaf Ali Ansari. In the notice thus sent on 11th April, 2012, the landlord had intimated, that the tenant had defaulted in remittance of rent ever since 2011 till the serving of the notice on 11th April, 2012, and as a consequence thereto, he was ranked defaulter in the remittance of the rent amount, which was due to be paid @ Rs. 1,000/- per month, which was shown to be amounting a total amount of Rs. 13,000/-.
5. Apart from the aforesaid notice, the landlord had also sent an another notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, by virtue of a registered post on 14th May, 2012, giving an intimation, that since, the tenant/petitioner has defaulted in regular remittance of the rent and after issuance of the notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, on 14th May, 2012, even since then, neither the rent was remitted nor the tenement, in question was vacated, it was intimated in the notice, that after the expiry of 30 days period thereof, the petitioner as a consequence, had became an unauthorised occupant of the tenement, in question.
6. When despite of the aforesaid two notices dated 11th April, 2012 and 14th May, 2012, when the vacant possession of the tenement, in question, which has been described above, was not handed over, the landlord / respondent had issued a notice on 6th July, 2012, through his Advocate, wherein, he had sought the vacation of the tenement
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.
Compliance with the mandatory conditions of Section 21(1)(a) of Act No. 13 of 1972, including the requirement of giving a six-month prior notice to the tenant, is crucial for the maintainability of a....
The landlord's need for release should be judged disparately, and the tenant cannot question and compel a landlord to live in a particular manner. The landlord is the best judge of his residential re....
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
