Back
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
MANISH GUPTA – Appellant
Versus
KEWAL RATAN – Respondent
| 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 p
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....
High Court under Article 227 set aside appellate reversal of rent control eviction order, holding it perverse for reappreciating evidence on landlord's bona fide ground floor shop need post-retiremen....
Under Article 227, supervisory jurisdiction limits interference with concurrent findings on bona fide need and comparative hardship unless perverse or jurisdictional error; landlord best judge of sui....
Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not permit re-appreciation of evidence or interference with concurrent findings on bona fide need and comparative hardship unless perverse.
The court established that a landlord's bona fide need for premises must be genuine, and the existence of alternate accommodations must be evaluated in context.
Appellate court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its view in rent release proceedings unless Prescribed Authority's findings perverse; supervisory jurisdiction under Art.227 corrects juris....
The bona fide need of a landlord for eviction under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Act is a factual determination that should not be interfered with by the courts, and tenants cannot dictate the m....
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....
Proceedings for release of building under occupation of tenant - It is well settled that power under Article 227/226 is of judicial superintendence which cannot be used to up-set conclusions of facts....
The court affirmed that the tenant's failure to contest the landlord's bona fide need led to an adverse inference, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review under Article 227.
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
