LexMOHD. AYUB & ANR. versus MUKESH CHAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B (2012] 1 S.C.R. 12 MOHD. AYUB & ANR. v. MUKESH CHAND (Ci1,1il Appeal No. 4495 of 2006) JANUARY 05, 2012 [AFTAB ALAM AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.] Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972: s.21 - Eviction application - C Bonafide need - Case of landlord that he required suit premises for his unemployed sons for running business and for his married son for residence ar.d that landlord's family comprised of 13 members and needed space as they were living in congestion in three rooms - Prescribed Authority D dismissed the eviction application on the ground that the landlord and his family were financially sound and other properties were available to them whereas except the tenanted premises, the tenant did not have any place for residence and business and if evicted tenant would experience more E difficulty - First appellate authority upheld the said order - High court partly allowed the appeal of landlord holding that the requirement of landlord was bonafide, however without going into aspect of comparative hardship it directed that only one room out of four rooms be handed over to the landlord - On F appeal, held: There was nothing to suggest that the landlord's business was more flourishing than the business which he proposed to start in the tenanted premises - All his sons were educated but unemployed - They wanted to start business in the tenanted premises - In all, there were thirteen members G in the landlord's family and they were living in three rooms and one verandah with great difficulty - As against that the tenant's family consisted of four persons and there were four rooms in his possession - The courts below were swayed by the fact that the financial position of the landlord was better H 12 .. MOHD. AYUB & ANR. v. MUKESH CHAND 13 than the tenant and erroneously observed that the landlord A could buy another building and start business - Perverse findings of the courts below on the aspect of comparative hardship set aside - The hardship landlord would suffer by not occupying their own premises would be far greater than the hardship the tenant would suffer by having to move out to B another place - The impugned order is set aside to the extent it permits the tenant to retain possession of three rooms out of four rooms in his occupation - Tenant granted six months time to vacate the premises in question - U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, C 1972 - r.16(2) - Rent control and eviction . The landlord-appellants case was that they purchased the suit premises in which the respondent was the tenant under the previous owner. The respondent continued tj remain in occupation of the two D shops facing the road and the two rooms situated at the rear of the said shops @ Rs.35 per month. The appellants filed suit for eviction under Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 on the ground of bonafide E requirement. The case of appellants was that the first appellant was carrying on business in three small stalls situated in a shop of the cantonment council whose rent kept on increasing. His three sons aged 23, 28 and 19 years were unemployed. Two sons wanted to start F general merchant business in one shop and the third son wanted to start wholesale egg business in the other shop. The appellants' family consisted of 13 members. One son was married having three children and the two other sons were of a marriageable age. The married son wanted to G live in the room behind the shop. The appellants' family was living in three rooms and a verandah with great difficulty. The defence of the respondent-tenant was that he was conducting photography business from the said shops for many years; that he was enjoying goodwill in H 14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 1 S.C.R. A the area; and that appellants were financially well off as compared to him and owned other properties and that greater hardship would be caused to the respondent if the decree of eviction was passed. B The Prescribed Authority dismissed the eviction application on the ground that the appellants were financially sound and other properties were available to them whereas except the suit shops the respondent did not have any place for residence and business and, if c evicted from the shops in his occupation, he would experience more diffic
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.