LexKRISHNA KUMAR RASTOGI versus SUMITRA DEVI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 9 S.C.R. 423 KRISHNA KUMAR RASTOGI v .. SUMITRA DEVI (Civil Appeal Nos.7796-7797 of 2014) AUGUST 20, 2014 [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] Rent Control and eviction: Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - s. 21(1)(a) - Bonafide need - Application uls. 21(1)(a) by landlord seeking release of shop A B c on the ground of personal need - Allowed by Prescribed Authority - Set aside by the appellate court and High Court 0 - Qn appeal, held: On facts, High Court erred in law in dismissing the petition of the landlord - High Court gave too much emphasis to the affidavit filed by a witness that the appellant attempted to sell disputed shop to him - Such statement cannot be relied upon unless supported with E documentary proof - Furthermore, the High Court relied on fact that elder son of the appellant was running a business as a tenant in a shop opposite to the disputed shop - Had it been found that the son for whom the landlord needed the shop had already got his own shop, the need for the landlord could have been said to be not genuine, but merely for the F reason that one of the sons. was running his business in a rented accommodation, the need of the landlord could not be doubted - Order of the High COJ.Jrt as also appellate court set aside, and that of the Prescribed Authority is upheld. The appellant landlord filed an application under Section 21 (1 )(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 against the respondent-tenant for release of the shop on G 423 H 424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R. A the ground that he needed the said shop to establish his son. The appellant had sent a notice to the respondent to vacate the premises occupied by her but the respondent did not vacate the shop. The Prescribed Authority allowed the application for release of shop in B his favour. The tenant filed an appeal and the same was allowed. The appellant filed Writ Petition before the High Court which was dismissed. Hence, the instant appeals. Allowing the appeals, the Court C HELD: 1.1. In the instant case, on going through the papers on record the High Court gave too much emphasis to the affidavit filed by the witness that the appellant attempted to sell disputed shop to him. The said fact was denied by the appellant. Merely for the reason D that some witness stated that the landlord attempted to sell the property his statement cannot be said to be reliable, as has been believed by the High Court or the appellate court, unless such fact is supported with documentary proof. There appears no document on E record to support the bald statement of a witness to dislodge the case of bonafide requirement of the shop claimed by the appellant for his son who was unemployed. [Para 14] [433-C-E] 1.2. The High Court relied on another fact that elder F son of the appellant was running a business as a tenant in a shop opposite to the disputed shop. Had it been found that the son for whom the landlord needed the shop had already got his own shop, it could have been said that the need for the landlord is not genuine, but in G the instant case if one of the sons was running his business that too in a rented accommodation, it cannot be said that the need of the landlord was not bonafide. The sons of the appellant are not supposed to starve on street till the shop is actually vacated for them. [Para 15] H [433-F-G] KRISHNA KUMAR RASTOGI v. SUMITRA DEVI 425 1.3. The High Court erred in law in dismissing the A petition of the appellant. The appellate court allowed the appeal of the tenant against the weight of the evidence on record. The view taken by the trial court/Prescribed Authority is-upheld. The orders challenged are set aside. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the B case, the respondent/tenant is allowed to vaciate the premises by 31st December, 2014 whereafter the landlord/appellant would be at liberty to get executed the order passed by the Prescribed Authority/Addi. Civil Judge. [Para 16) [434-A-C] · c Mohd. Ayub and Another vs Mukesh Chand 2012 (1) SC~ 12:(2012) 2 SCC 155; · Rishi Kumar Go vii vs. Maqsoodan and Ors 2007 (4) SCR 483:(2007) 4 SCC 465 - referred to. Case Law Reference : 2012 (1) SCR 12 2007 (4) SCR 483 Referred to Referred to Para 11 Para 13 D E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Ap
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.