The bona fide need of a landlord to evict tenants for an adult family member's independent business cannot be denied based solely on tenant longevity; evidence of genuine necessity must be considered.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Section 21(1)(a) - Landlord sought eviction of tenants based on bona fide need for his daughter’s business - Authority rejected application citing tenant's long-standing occupancy and alleged availability of alternate accommodation - Court ruled that the concurrent findings were perverse and not supported by evidence; emphasized the landlord's autonomy in determining needs. (Paras 23, 25, 26, 31)

(B) Bona fide requirement - Defined as genuine, real, and pressing necessity rather than mere desire; the landlord's claim should not be undermined solely based on the tenant's prolonged occupation or speculation about properties. (Paras 23, 24, 30)

Facts of the case:
The landlord's application for eviction of tenants in his shop for his daughter’s business was rejected by both the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Court on the grounds of insufficient bona fide need and availability of alternate shops. The tenants claimed their right stemming from long-term occupation.

Findings of Court:
Both authorities did not adequately consider new evidence regarding the completion of the daughter’s education and the landlord's autonomy over his property usage, leading this Court to deem their findings erroneous.

Issues: Key questions pertained to the genuineness of the landlord’s need, the existence of alternate accommodation, and the impact of the daughter’s educational status on the bona fide requirement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that a landlord's bona fide need for an adult family member’s business cannot be dismissed lightly; assumed availability of alternative premises must be substantiated by credible evidence to override this requirement.

Result: The petition was allowed, previous orders were set aside, and tenants were directed to vacate the premises.

Table of Content
1. introduction of landlord's petition for eviction. (Para 1 , 2)
2. tenants objected to bona fide need. (Para 3)
3. prescribed authority's findings on need. (Para 4)
4. petitioner's arguments on need and education. (Para 5 , 10 , 12)
5. appellate court's dismissal upholding earlier findings. (Para 6 , 8)
6. final judgment allowed the petition. (Para 7)
7. petitioner’s legal arguments on alternate accommodation. (Para 9 , 11 , 15 , 16)
8. existence of alternate premises affecting need. (Para 20 , 21)
9. principles governing 'bona fide requirement.' (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
10. court's critique of factual inferences by lower courts. (Para 26 , 29)
11. court’s reasoning on fairness and tenant's position. (Para 30 , 31)

JUDGMENT :

Ashish Naithani, J.

1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been instituted by the Petitioner, who is the landlord of a tenanted shop situated in Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. The challenge is directed against the order dated 26.05.2022 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (J.D.), Kashipur in Rent Control Case No. 06 of 2019, Manish Gupta v. Kewal Ratan and Another , and the judgment dated 24.11.2022 passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Kashipur in Rent Control Appeal No. 2 of 2022, whereby the release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, has been rejected and the Appellate court has affirmed the said rejection.

2. The Petitioner, as landlord, sought release of the tenanted shop for the bona fide and genuine need of his daughter, Ms. Mohini Gupta, who intended to start an independent boutique business. It was stated that the Petitioner had no other vacant shop suitable for such purpose and that the need was both real and pressing.

3. The Respondents, tenants since 1975, filed objections denying the genuineness of the need. They contended that the daughter of the Petitioner was still pursuing her studies and that the Petitioner owned several other shops and premises, including a three-storied commercial building in the main market and other tenancies on Ratan Cinema Road. The tenants alleged that the Petitioner’s intent was only to enhance rent and that the plea of bona fide requirement was pretextual.

4. The Prescribed Authority, after evaluating the evidence, held that the need was not bona fide since Ms. Mohini Gupta was studying in a regular B.A. course and had not yet commenced any business activity. It further held that alternate accommodation was available with the landlord and that eviction would cause greater hardship to the tenants.

5. The landlord preferred Rent Control Appeal No. 2 of 2022, contending that the Authority had failed to appreciate the material on record in its proper perspective and had overlooked the subsequent completion of the daughter’s education. It was submitted that the additional evidence, including her degree from Graphic Era University, established that the need was genuine and continuing.

6. The Appellate Court, while dismissing the appeal, held that the availability of alternative shops weakened the landlord’s claim. It concluded that there existed four shops on the first floor of the Petitioner’s complex, one of which was vacant, and that the daughter could conveniently use the said premises for her proposed boutique.

7. The Appellate court thus upheld the Prescribed Authority’s finding and dismissed the appeal on 24.11.2022.

8. Aggrieved by these concurrent findings, the Petitioner has approached this Court invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, alleging that both courts below acted perversely, ignored the concept of bona fide need as judicially interpreted, and based their decisions on conjecture rather than evidence.

9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, Shri Siddhartha Singh, submitted that both the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Court failed to appreciate the legal principles gover