G.C.KAPOOR versus NAND KUMAR BHASIN AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 282 · Decided: 20-11-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
G.C.KAPOOR 
v. 
NAND KUMAR BHASIN AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 20, 2001 
B 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Rent Control and Eviction : 
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting, Rent and Evic-
tion) Act, 1972/Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Regulation of letting Rent and 
Eviction Rules, 1972--Sec.21 (I)( a) Rule 16(2)( d)-Eviction of tenant-Suit 
premises let out when son of landlord was a minor-Subsequently landlord's 
son obtained post-graduate diploma in computer science-Application 
for eviction filed on the ground of bona fide requirement for starting a computer 
consultancy centre-Dismissed by Courts below inter alia on the ground that 
landlord had no financial capacity to start the business and no affidavit was 
filed to show technical know-how-Justification of-Held, since the landlord's 
son has completed technical education and is not employed in Government and 
wants to engage in self-employment, criteria specified in Rule 16(2){d) are 
satified-Financial capacity to stan business is not relevant consideration for 
eviction-Since the tenant was having alternative premises to run his business 
and landlord having no other premises except the suit premises, landlord would 
suffer greater hardship if eviction is rejected-Landlord entitled to eviction 
decree. 
The suit premises was let out by appellant to respondent No. 1 at the 
time when his son 'R' was a minor. Subsequently 'R' obtained a post-
graduate diploma in computer science. Appellant-landlord filed an evic-
tion application under section 2l(l)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Build· 
ings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, on the ground 
that the suit premises was required bona fide for starting a computer 
consultancy centre by 'R'.After filing the eviction petition appellant sent a 
proposal to the Bureau oflnformation, Technology and Science (BITS) for 
grant of franchise to open a computer consultancy centre. The franchise 
was initially granted but was subsequently withdrawn. The eviction peti· 
tion was dismissed by th• prescribed authority interalia on the ground that 
appellant did not have the financial capacity to start the business and no 
affidavit was filed to show that 'R' had technical knowledge to start the 
282 
• 
-
G.C. KAPOOR v. NAND KUMAR BHASIN 
283 
business. Appellant unsuccessfully filed appeals before the Additional Dis ti ct 
A 
Jduge and High Court. Hence the present appeal by appellant-landlord. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The courts below were not justified in dismissing the 
eviction petition of the appellant-lanlord. Appellant is entitled to decree 
for eviction under Section 2l(l)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings 
(Regulation of Lettings, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. (285-A; 289-B-C] 
2.1. Bonafide requirement means that requirement must be honest 
and not tainted with any oblique motive and is not a mere desire or wish. 
[287-A] 
Dattatraya Lc.xman Kamble v. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkunde and Anr., 
(1999] 4 SCC 1 and Raghunath G. Panhale (D) by Lrs. v. Chaganlal Sundarji 
and Co., [1999] 8 SCC 1, relied on. 
B 
c 
2.2. The courts below completely overlooked Rule 16(2)(d) of the 
D 
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) 
Rules, 1972 while deciding the eviction petition. The said rnle provides 
that the court has to ascertain whether the son of the landlord has 
completed technical education and is not employed in the government 
and wants to engage in self-employment. All the criteria laid down in the 
E 
said clause have been proved in the instant case and, therefore, appellant 
is entitled to get the decree for eviction. (288-F-G] 
2.3. The courts below erred in holding that appellant did not have 
financial capacity to start the business. Both the courts below with math-
ematical precision considered this aspect while coming to the conclusion 
F 
that he does not have financial capacity. These are irrelevant considera-
tions as the question of having necessary funds to start the business is not 
at all necessary. That apart. as the appellant has got immovable property 
it would not he difficult for him to raise necessary funds. (287-D-F] 
Dattatraya La.xman Kamble v. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkunde and 
Anr., [1999] 4 SCC 1, relied on. 
2.4. Merely because the franchise was withdrawn by BITS, it will be 
incorrect to come :o the conclusion that the son of the appellant would not 
G 
be able to start the 

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