NIDHI versus RAM KRIPAL SHARMA (D) THROUGH LRS.

Citation: [2017] 1 S.C.R. 897 · Decided: 07-02-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2017) I S.C.R. 897 
NIDHI 
v. 
RAM KRIPAL SHARMA (D) THROUGH LRS. · 
(Civil Appeal No. 1008 of 20 I 7) 
FEBRUARY 07, 2017 
[DIPAK MISRA AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.) 
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent 
and Eviction) Act, 1972 - s.2J(J)(a) - Release of building under 
occupation of tenant - Release sought by landlady on the ground 
a/bona fide requirement for her grandparents -Prescribed Authority 
holding that balance of convenience was in favour of the landlady, 
found that she required the premises bona fide - Appellate court 
held that need for tenanted premises was not based on bona fide 
requirement - The High Court held that the alleged bona fide need 
extinguished in view of the subsequent circumstance viz. marriage 
of the landlady - On appeal, held: Though the court has the power 
to take note of the. subsequent events, court has to consider the 
effect of subsequent development on the bona fide need of the 
landlord - For the purpose of coming to the conclusion on bona 
fide need, comparative hardship of the parttes have to be taken into 
consideration - In the present case though the landlady, during 
pendency of the appeal, got married, but still her requirement to 
accommodate the grandparents continued - The subsequent event 
of marriage of landlady did not extinguish her c/qim for requirement 
considering the comparative hardship in the facts of the present 
case - The High Court, while taking note of subsequent events, 
failed to consider comparative hardship to the landlady - Rent 
Control and Eviction. 
Rent Control and Eviction - Landlord-tenant dispute - The 
legislations made for dealing with !::::dlord-tenant disputes are pro-
tenant - The court tends to bend tu"'"'ds the tenant in order to do 
;ustice - But in the process of doing justice, the court cannot be 
over-zealous' and forget its duty towards !h" landlord. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The legislations made for dealing with such 
897 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
898 
.A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] I S.C.R. 
landlord-tenant disputes were pro-tenant as the court tends to 
bend towards the tenant in order to do justice with the tenant; 
but in the process of doing justice, the Court cannot be over 
zealous and forget its duty towards the landlord also as ultimately, 
it is the landlord who owns the property and is entitled tO 
possession of the same when he proves his bona fide beyond 
reasonable doubt. [Para 13] (904-B-C] 
2. Section 2l(l)(a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings 
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 shows that 
the landlord of rented property is entitled to the vacant possession 
of his rented premises in the event of his bona fide requirement 
of the said premises for his own residential or professional 
requirements or for any person related to him. [Para 11] [902-E; 
903-A-B] 
3. Ordinarily, rights of the parties stand crystallised on 
th_e date of institution of the suit. However, the court has power 
to take note of the subsequent events and mould the relief 
accordingly. Though the court has the power to take note of the 
subsequent events, court has to consider the effect of subsequent 
development on the bona fide need of the landlord. [Paras 15, 
16] [904-E; 905-E-FJ 
Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad (1981) 3 SCC 103 : 
(1981) 3 SCR 605; Ramesh Kumar v. Kesha Ram 
(1992) Suppl. (2) SCC 623: Om Prakash Gupta v. 
Ranbir B. Goyal (2002) 2 SCC 256 : [2002] 1 SCR 
359: Ram Kumar Barnwal v. Ram Lakhan (Dead) 
(2007) 5 SCC 660 : [2007] 6 SCR 576 - relied on. 
Kedar Nath Agrawal and Anr. v. Dhanraji Devi and 
Anr. 2004 (4) AWC 3709 (SC) - referred to. 
4. For the purpose of coming to the conclusion on bona 
fide need of the landlord, comparative hardship to the parties 
will have to be taken into consideration. In the present case, the 
appellant got married during the pendency of the appeal and 
settled with her husband; still her requirement to accommodate 
her parents and grandparents continued. Appellant has established 
her hmw fide requirement for accommodating her parents and 
grandparents in the suit premises merely because the appellant 
NIDHI v. RAM KRIPAL SHARMA (D) THROUGH LRS. 
got married amidst the proceedings, does not extinguish her claim 
for the relief of possession of the suit premises. Therefore, the 
subsequent event, namely, marriage of appellant does not 
extinguish her requirement considering the comparative 
hardship. The respondents
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.