Under Section 21(2)(m) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, the landlord's requirement for eviction is based on a plain demonstration of need for occupation. The statutory framework omits the requirements of 'bona fide need' and 'comparative hardship' present in previous legislation.

AFR

Heard Sri Atul Dayal, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Sri Prakash Chandra Dwivedi, for the petitioner and Sri Kunal Shah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. The petitioner, claiming to be a tenant in respect of a shop situated at 106/376, Gandhi Nagar, ‘P’ Road, Kanpur Nagar, at a monthly rent of Rs.500/-, has filed the present petition. The respondent–landlord instituted proceedings under Section 21(2)(a), (b) and (m) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2021”), seeking release of the premises in question on the ground that he had acquired ownership thereof by inheritance and that the same was required for expansion of his business.

2.1 In support of the application, it was averred by way of affidavit that the landlord was in possession of a non-residential area measuring approximately 150 square yards, being utilized as a godown, while an area ad-measuring about 90 square yards on the first floor was being used as a furniture workshop. It was further stated that, in the event possession of the premises in question is secured, the landlord would be in a position to shift the furniture workshop to the ground floor and utilize the first floor portion for residential purposes.

2.2 It was also asserted that a notice dated 02.06.2023 had been issued, along with an intimation purportedly under Section 4(3) of the Act, 2021, and that the rent, as assessed on the basis of the applicable circle rate, would be Rs.1,00,000/- per month.

3. The petitioner–tenant appeared and contested the proceedings, inter alia asserting that the agreed rent was Rs. 500/- per month; that the alleged enhancement of rent to Rs.1,00,000/- was impermissible under the Act; that no valid notice had been served; and that the alleged refusal of notice was incorrect. It was further contended that the landlord’s requirement was not genuine and that alternative accommodations were available to him, whereas the tenanted shop constituted the sole source of livelihood of the petitioner.

4. The parties exchanged pleadings and filed affidavits in support of their respective claims. The landlord reiterated his requirement of the premises for personal use, while the petitioner denied the same and raised objections regarding maintainability, service of notice, and compliance with statutory requirements.

5. The Rent Authority, by order dated 19.06.2025, allowed the release application and directed eviction of the petitioner. It recorded that the rate of rent was Rs. 500/- per month and that there was no default in payment of rent. The application, however, was allowed under Section 21(2)(m) of the Act, 2021 on the ground of personal requirement of the landlord.

6. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 35 of the Act, which came to be dismissed by the Rent Tribunal vide order dated 30.01.2026, affirming the findings recorded by the Rent Authority.

7. The petitioner has now approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the aforesaid orders.

8. The core issue that arises for consideration is whether, under the scheme of Section 21(2)(m) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, the landlord is merely to demonstrate that the premises are required for his occupation, or whether such requirement must also satisfy the test of “bona fide need” as was contemplated under the erstwhile U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 .

9. The petitioner has assailed the impugned orders contending that the requirement set up by the landlord is neither genuine nor pressing and is merely a pretext to evict the tenant. It is urged that the landlord is possessed of alternative accommodations which could sufficiently meet his alleged need, yet the same have not been considered by the authorities below. It is further submitted that relevant m