OM PRAKASH versus BHAGWAN DAS

Citation: [1986] 1 S.C.R. 598 · Decided: 10-03-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

598 
A 
OM PRAKASH 
+-
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
v. 
BllAGWAN DAS 
MARCH 10, 1986 
[A.P. SEN, B.C. RAY AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] 
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Rent and Eviction) 
Act 1972 & U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & 
Eviction) Rules, 1972, s. 21(1) (a) 4th Proviso/Rule 16(l)(f) 
-
Landlord seeking ajectment of tenant on bona fide need -
Landlord offering reasonable, suitable accormnodation to tenant 
- Landlord's claim to eviction to be considered liberally. 
The 
Prescribed Authority, 
Varanasi and the Second 
Additional District Judge, in revision, after considering the 
comparative hardship likely to be caused to the tenant and the 
landlord, allowed the application of the appellant - landlord 
under s. 2l(l)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of 
Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 on the ground that the 
need of the appellant-landlord was bona fide and he was 
entitled to the release of the demised premises. The Authori-
ties also held that since the appellant was living in the 
rented premises, there was no reason why he should be deprived 
of the beneficial enjoyment of his own property. However, in 
the appeal, the High Court set aside the orders passed by the 
aforesaid two Authorities. 
Allowing the appeal, 
BEU> : 1. There was no infirmity in the order of the 
Prescribed Authority or that of the learned II Additional 
District Judge. The High Court was clearly in error in 
interfering with the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, 
Varanasi and that of the II Additional District Judge, 
G 
Varanasi. The judgment and order of the High Court are, 
therefore, set aside. The order of the Prescribed Authority, 
Varanasi and that of the II Additional Judge, Varanasi 
,.._ 
directing the release of the acco111110dation under s. 21 (1 )(a) 
of the Act are restored. [601 D; 601 H) 
H 
.. 
OM PRAKASH v. BHAGWAN DAS [SEN, J. ] 
599 
A 
2. One of the factors prescribed by r. 16 (l)(f) is that 
if the landlord applies for ejectment of the tenant on the 
ground that the acco111DOdation is bona fide required by him for 
his use and the members of his family and if the landlord 
offers reasonably suitable accommodation to the tenant for the • 
needs of his family, the landlord's claim for eviction shall 
B 
be considered liberally. (601 B] 
In the instant case, the refusal of the application of 
the landlord under s. 21 (l) (a) of the Act would undoubtedly 
cause greater hardship to him as that would deprive of his 
beneficial enjoyment of his own property. In such a case, it 
could not be said that the landlord had not fulfilled the 
C 
requirement of the 4th proviso to s.2l(l)(a) of the Act. 
(601 D] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal No. 959 of 
1986. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.5.1985 of the 
Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.~. No. 11377 of 1980. 
R.B. Mehrotra for the Appellant. 
Sunil Aml:Mani and Mukul Mudgal for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SEN, J. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, 
we are satisfied that the High Court, in the facts and 
circumstances of the case, was clearly in error in interfering 
with the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, Varanasi 
and that of the 11 Additional District Judge, Varanasi by 
which they allowed the application made by the appellant under 
s. 21(1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Lett-
ing, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Although the Authorities on 
a consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that 
the need of the landlord was bona fide and he was entitled to 
the release of the demised premises under s. 21(1) (a) of the 
Act. Admittedly, the appellant and the respondent are displac-
ed persons and the authorities held that since the appellant 
was living in rented premises there was no reason why he 
should be deprived of the beneficial enjoyment of his own 
property. 
D. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
600 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1986] l s.c.R. 
In Bhaicband Ratanshi v. I.:ixmlsbanker Tribhovan, [ 1981] 
3 s.c.c. 502 this Court interpreting the analogous provisions 
in s. 13 (1) (g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House 
Rates Control Act, 1947 observed : 
"The Legislature by enacting Section 13 (2) of the 
Act seeks to strike a just balance between the 
landlord and the tenant so that the order of evic-
tion under Section 13 (1) (g) o·f the Act does not 
cause any hardship to either side. The considera-
tions that weigh in striking ·a just bal

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.