LexMANOJ KUMAR AND ANR. versus MUNNI DEVI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
S.-- MANOJ KUMAR AND ANR. A v. MUNN! DEVI APRIL 28, 2005 [R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., G.P. MATHUR AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] B Rent Control and Eviction : UP. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, c 1972-Section 21(/)(a) and first proviso thereto-Eviction-On the ground of bonafide requirement-Denied by Prescribed Authority-Granted by Appellate Authority on finding that need of the landlord was bonafide and that comparative hardship of the landlord was greater and first proviso to the Section was complied with-Order of Appellate Authority not interfered with by High Court-On appeal, held: Appellate Authority rightly ordered eviction. D Respondent-landlord filed application u/s. 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 against the appellant-tenants, on the grounds that the building was in dilapidated condition and was required for demolition and new construction wherein after the new construction, her husband would carry on business; and that E she had bonafide requirement for establishing business of one of her sons as he was unemployed. Prescribed Authority dismissed the release application. The appeal was allowed by appellate Authority holding that requirement of first proviso to Section 21(1) of the Act had been complied with and that the need of the landlord was bonafide and landlord would F suffer greater hardship as compared to the tenants. Writ Petition filed by the tenant was dismissed by High Court. In appeal to this Court appellant contended that the release application was not maintainable as first proviso to Section 2t(t)(a) of the Act was not complied with and that the landlord had no bonafide G requirement of the property and the tenants would suffer greater hardship in the event the shop in question were released. -.. Dismissing the appeal, the Court 959 H ,...... 960 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R. A HELD : The Appellate Authority has recorded a clear finding that the need of the landlord was bona fide and genuine and further that the landlord will suffer greater hardship in the event of rejection of the release application than that which will be suffered by the tenants in the event of grant of the application as they had several other vacant shops in their B occupation. The Appellate Authority has also recorded a finding that the requirement of first proviso to Section 21(1) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 had been complied with as a notice was given before filing of1he release application. The High Court, therefore, rightly declined to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Authority while exercising jurisdi'"tion under Article 226 of C the Constitution. (962-H; 963-8) Martin and Harris Ltd v. Vth Addi. District Judge, ( 1998) 1 SCC 732 and Anwar Hasan Khan v. Mohd Shafi and Ors., (2001) 8 SCC 540, referred to. D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2919 of2005. From the Judgment and Order dated 26. 7 .2002 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M. W.P. No. 31196 of 1996. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Anurag Sharma and Prashant Kumar for the E Appellants. E.C. Aga~~la; Mahesh Agarwal and Rishi Agrawal for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F G.P. MATHUR, J. l. Leave granted. 2. This appeal by special leave has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 26. 7.2002 of Allahabad High Court by which the writ petition preferred by the appellants was dismissed. G 3. Jawahar Lal, the father of the· appellants was a tenant of a shop bearing No. 29/17, Namak Ki Mandi, Agra and it was purchased by the respondent Smt. Munni Devi on 23.01.1976. After the death of Jawahar Lal, - the appellants being his sons inherited the tenancy and started paying rent to - the respondent. The respondent filed an application in the year 1987 seeking release of the shop on two grounds, namely, that the building was in a H dilapidated condition and is required for the purpose of demolition and new I • MANOJ KUMAR v. MUNNI DEVI [ G.P. MATHUR, J.) 961 construction wherein her husband will carry on the business after new A construction had been made. The second ground pleaded was that one of her sons was unemployed and was sitting idle and he would also establish his business in the shop. The appellants contested the release application on various grounds. The Prescribed Authority dismissed the release a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.