DEEP CHANDRA JUNEJA versus SMT. LAJWANTI KATHURIA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.

Citation: [2008] 10 S.C.R. 684 · Decided: 10-07-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
l 
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 684 
I 
I 
A 
DEEP CHANDRA JUNEJA 
v. 
SMT. LAJWANTI KATHURIA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7300 of 2005) 
B 
JULY 10, 2008 
~ 
[C.K. THAKKER AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, 
JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
c 
UP Urban Buildings ( Regulation of Letting, Rent and 
I 
Eviction) Act, 1972 - s. 21(1)(a) - Bona fide requirement -
r 
Release application - Need of additional accommodation by 
. landlord and his family members - Allowed by Prescribed 
Authority as also Appellate Authority - Upheld by High Court 
D - Interference with- Held: Does not call for interference- Con-
t 
current findings of facts by courts below that tenant and his 
'J 
family members had separate accommodation in the City -
I-
....
Finding of bona fide need and comparative hardship in favour 
of landlord - Plea that landlord again let some portion of house 
E to new tenants on higher rent not established - More so; it 
cannot be said that in view of the length of the period of ten-
ancy, eviction of tenant in violation of Rule 16 - UP Urban 
Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 
1972- r. 16. 
F 
The respondent .. landlady was the owner of a house 
"' 
in Kanpur city. She let out ttie ground floor of the premises 
to the appellant-tenant for residential purpose. Ten years 
later, respondent filed application for release of the pre-
mises. The Prescribed Authority dismissed the applica-
G tion. However, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal 
and directed the appellant to vacate the premises and shift 
F 
to an alternate accommodation being offered by the land-
lady. However, the accommodation was not vacated. 
~-
Thereafter, the landlady filed second release application 
H 
684 
DEEP CHANDRA JUNEJA v. SMT. LAJWANTI KATHURIA 685 
(DEAD) THROUGH L.RS. 
u/s 21 (1 )(a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of A 
· Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 for the need of her 
sons, daughters-in-law and grand children as they were 
facing tremendous inconvenience and hardships on ac-
count of shortage of accommodation. T:he appellant con-
tended that the claim was not bona fide and genuine; th.at B 
the sons of the landlady were residing with her and tt:le 
landlady did not need more accommodation because 
other tenants who were living in the building had vacated 
the accommodations, which were again let out by her to 
new tenants on higher rent; and that the landlady wa,s c 
having one more house. The Prescribed Authority al-
lowed the release application. Appellate Authority uphel'd 
the order. The appellant-tenant filed writ petition. The 
Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ peti'-
tion holding that the courts below after taking into con.-
0 
sideration the entire material on record, recorded finding 
of bona fide need and comparative hardship in favour of 
landlord, thus, interference was not called for. It directed 
the appellant to vacate the premises within one year; 
Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD: 1.1 From the pleadings of the parties, both 
the prescribed authority and the Appellate Authority noted 
that the landlady at the time of filing of the second release 
application was residing in the same house with her el-
F 
der son, younger son, and married daughter and their fam-
ily. She filed affidavit in support of her release application 
stating inter alia her need for the accommodation. The 
appellant-tenant denied the genuine requirement of the 
landlady. The Prescribed Authority, on assessment of the G 
entire evidence on record, came to the conclusion that 
the appellant-tenant failed to establish that the landlady 
had let out some portions of the house to the new ten-
ants on higher rent. The Prescribed Authority stated in its 
order that the landlady filed on record a paper in which H 
686 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 
A the residential address of the appellant-tenant-Ghaoo 
Khera, and other papers also revealed the same address 
of the appellant-tenant. On the basis of the oral as well as 
documentary evidence on record, the prescribed author-
ity came to the conclusion that the appellant-tenant is re-
8 siding with his son V and his family members. The aver-
ments of the landlady in her eviction application that the 
appellant-tenant has got House No.140~C Ramgali, 
Harjinder Nagar, 220, Patel Nagar, 1/382 N-2 Road, Harjinder 
Nagar, has been supported by AK and RK in their affida-
C vits. The Prescribed Authority not

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.