PRABHA ARORA AND ANR. versus BRIJ MOHINI ANAND AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 721 · Decided: 31-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. MATHUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

( 
f 
I 
' 
'""" 
PRABHA ARORA AND ANR. 
A 
V. 
BRIJ MOHINI ANAND AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 31, 2007 
~ 
[A.K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] 
-"· 
Rent Control and Eviction-Eviction suit-On the ground of 
using the premises for earning purpose-Evict ion denied by Prescribed 
Authority-Allowed by the Appellate Authority and High Court- c 
Subsequent event duringpendency of appeal-On appeal, held: In the 
facts of the case and in view of subsequent event, ground for eviction 
-l 
disappeared-Landlady not entitled for eviction-UP. Urban 
Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972-s. 21 
(1) (a). 
D 
Respondent-landlady filed an application u/s 21(1)(a) ofU.P. 
Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 
against the appellant-tenants. Eviction was sought on the ground that 
she wanted the premises for running tuition/coaching classes in order 
E 
to augment her income. Prescribed authority rejected her 
application. Appellate Authority as well as High Court upheld her 
claim. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that during pend ency of the appeal before 
--? 
the appellate authority, a Trust was created in respect of the property F 
in question and in view of that the very purpose for which the eviction 
was sought, disappeared. 
Respondent contended that the purpose did not disappear 
because the application for eviction was filed on the ground that the 
G 
respondent wanted to do charitable work. 
\-
.>\ 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: In view of the creation of the Trust during pendency of 
721 
H 
-\ 
722 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 11 S.C.R. 
y 
A the litigation, the purpose for which eviction was sought of the 
tenants through the release application has disappeared. The trust 
deed nowhere mentions that any income of the Trust will be given 
to the petitioner who filed the release application. In fact, Section 
51 of the Trust Act debars a trustee from using the trust property 
B for his own profit. The purpose mentioned in the petition under 
Section 21 ofU.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and 
A 
Eviction) Act, 1972 was not for doing charitable work. However, after 
...... 
the execution of the trust deed, the premises in dispute now belongs 
r 
to the Trust. The need mentioned in the petition under Section 21 
c has totally disappeared. [Paras 4 and 8] [723-D, E; 724-C, D] 
KedarNathAgrawal (dead) andAnr. v.DhanrajiDevi (dead) by 
I-
Lrs. and Anr., [2004] 8 SCC 76; Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad, 
r
( 1981] 3 SCC 103 and MM Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors., 
~ 
(1981] 3 sec 36, relied on. 
~ 
D 
.I 
Tulsidas Kilachand and Ors. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, AIR 
·r 
(1961) SC 1023, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2371 of 
2007. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.10.2006 of the High Court 
ofU1.taranchal at Nainital in W.P. No. 337/2004 (MIS). 
Dinesh Dwivedi, P.N. Gupta for the Appellants. 
M.N. Krishnamani, S.C. Maheshwari, J. Quddisi, Vipul 
~ 
F 
., 
Mal1eshwari, M.P.S. Tomer and Sandhya Goswami for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. I. This appeal has been filed against 
G the judgment dated 09. l 0.2006 passed by the Uttaranchal High Court in 
Writ Petition No. 337 of 2004 (M/S). Heard learned counsel for the 
....J. .... 
parties and perused the records. 
2. The appellants before us are the tenants of the premises in dispute 
while the respondents are the landlords. The landlady filed the petition 
H 
J 
I 
PRABHAARORA V. :!lRUMOHINIANAND 
723 
[MARKANDEYKATJU,J.] 
i.fudet 5ection 2l(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, A 
Re~t and EvldiBh) Act, 1972. The grounds mentioned in the release 
application of the landlady was that she is a retired teacher getting only a 
pension of Rs. 538/~ per ttionth which is insufficient for her needs. Hence 
to augment her income she wants to rtift tuition/coaching classes in the 
)._ 
premise§ Jtt QHSstitm. The said petition was rejected by the Prescribed B 
,..J. 
Authority, but in appeal the appellate authority (ADJ Dehradun) by his 
judgment dated 16.03 .2004 reversed the order of the Prescribed 
Authority and allowed the release application. The said judgment dated 
16:6.12004 has been upheld by the High Court by the impugned judgment 
dated 09. i 0.2006. Hence this appeal. 
c 
3. It may be mentioned that during the pendency of the appeaJ 
before the appellate authority a Trust was cre

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