LexMOHD. SHAFI versus SEVENTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, ALLAHABAD & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H 464 MOHD. SHAFI v. SEVENTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE .. ALLAHABAD & ORS. December 16, 1976 [P. N. BHAGWATI, V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.] U.P. Urban Buildi11gs (Regulation of Le/ling, Rent and Eviction) Actfin2- Sec. 2! (I) expla11ation (iv )-Interpretation of a benevolent legislarion-When two views possible-Whether to be construed strictly against the landlord- Meaning of "building" in explanation (iv)-Whether Unit of accommodation- Constitu:ion-Articles 226-227-Whether High Court can interfere with mixed questions of law a11d facts. Respondent No. 3 owned a double storey house. There were two tenements on the ground floor and two on the first floor. Each of the two tenements in the first floor was in possession of a tenant. One of the tenements on the ground floor was in possession of respondent No. 3 while the other tenement on the ground floor was in possession of the appellant as a tenant since the last over 35 years. Respondent No. 3 after terminating the tenancy of the appel- lant made an application before the prescribed authority under s. 21 (1) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. 13 of 1972) claiming release of the rented premises in her favour on the ground that she bona fide required them for occupation by herself and the members of her family for residential purposes. The prescribed authority held that the explanation (iv) to s. 21(1) of the Act was attracted in the present case since tb.e ground floor constituted a building and a part of it was under the tenancy of the appellant and the remaining part was in occupation of res- pondent No. 3. Under s. 21 (1) the prescribed authority has power to evict. a tenant if it is satisfied that the building is bona fide required by the landlord ·for occupation by himself or any member of his family. The proviso, however, requires that ·except in the case mentioned in the explanation the prescribed authority shall take into account the likely hardship to the tenant from the grant of the application as against the likely hardship to the landlord from the refusal of the application. Explanation (iv) provides that the tact that the building under tenancy is a part of a building the remaining part whereof is in the occupation of the landlord for residential purposes, shall be conclusive to prove that the building is bona fide required by the landlard. The prescribed authority also went into the question of comparative hardship and held that greater hardship would be caused to respondent No. 3 by refusal of her appli- cation than what would be caused to the appellant by granting it. In an appeal filed by the appellant, the District Court agreed with the· prescribed authority that explanation (iv) to section 21 (!) was applicable to the facts of the case and that it conclusively proved that the building was bona fide required by respondent No. 3. But on the question of greater hard- ship the District Court disagreed with the conclusion reached by the pres~rihed authority and held that the app~llant was ltkely to .suffer greater hardship by granting the application !ban what respondent No. 3 would. suf)'er by its refu.sal. The District Court accordingly allowed the appeal and drsmrssed the app!tci.- tion of respondent No. 3 for release of the rented premises. In a writ petition filed by respondent No. 3 the High Court held that the prescribed authority had recorde~ a definite fi!1d~ng of fact that the accommo- dation o0 the ground floor constituted one bmldmg and that the app.ellant was in possession of a part of the buildi!1g. and resporiden! No. 3 wa~ m occupa- tion of the remaining part of the bmldmg for resrdentral purposes. The Hrgh Court held that once it wa~ held that explanation (iv) to ~. 21 (I) wa1: attracted \ ( • 1 . ... • \ j MOHD. SHAFI v. VII ADDL. DSTT. S.J •. (Bhagwati, /.) .(65 there could be no question· of examining comparative hardship. The High 'A, Court, therefore, allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of the Dist- rict Court and allowed the application of respondent No. 3 for release of the rented premises. Allowing· the appeal by Speciai Leave, · HELD: i. If explanation (iv) to s. 21(1) is applicable in the present case, the question of comparative hardship of appellant and respondent No. 3 would not ar\se. [ 467 G] ·B Z. The High Court erred in holding tha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.