PREM CHAND versus DISTRICT JUDGE, DEHRADUN & ANR.

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 170 · Decided: 23-11-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
.F 
·H 
170 
PREM CHAND 
v. 
DISTRICT JUDGE, DEHRADUN & ANR. 
November 23, 1976 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, P. K. GOSWAMI AND S. M. FAZAL ALI, JJ.] 
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 
1972, s. 21 (1) Explanation (iv), presumption of bonafide requirement when 
applicable-Whether shop run in residential building converts it into 11011-rcsi-
dentia/. 
The appellant was a tenant occupying two rooms in the residentbl house 
of respondent No. 2. 
He used one room for living purposes and the other 
as a tailoring shop. The landlady brought a suit for his eviction on the ground 
of personal requirement. but the same was dismissed by the District Magistrate. 
An appeal to the District Judge Dehradun was allowed, and Explanation (iv) 
to s. 21 (1) of the U.P. Urban Buildiniis (Regulation of Letting, Ren-! and Evic-
tion) 'Act, 1972 was held applicable. The view was upheld by the High Court 
in petition filed by the appellant who contended that due to his shop the house 
under tenancy had ceased to be a residential building 
and 
that Explanation 
(iv) was not applicable. 
The High Court rejected the petition. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court. 
HELD : Explanation (iv) provides a conclusive and irrebuttable presump-
tion of bona fide requirement once the conditions mentioned therein are est&· 
blished. 
The tests for application of Explanation (iv) are a.; follows 
(1) The building should be a residential building; and 
(2) The landlord must be in occupation of a part of the building for 
residential purposes, the other part being in the occupation of the 
tenant. 
If the a,bove two tests are fulfilled in a case, there is no need for the land-
lord to establish any other requirement. [172F-H] 
(2) The fact that a tailoring shop is run in one of t~e room~ is ~ot suf!ic!ent 
to convert what otherwise to all intents and purposes 1s a res1dential bmldmg, 
into a non-residential building. [172E-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1043 of 1976. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment 
9-3-1976 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil 
6938/74. 
-
and Order dated 
Misc., Petn. 
No. 
K. P. Kapur and A. L. Trehan, for the appellant. 
S. C. Agrawal and M. M. D. Srivastava, for respondent No. 2. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
GoswAMI, J.-This appeal by special leave is by the tenant (to 
be described hereinafter as the appellant) and is directed aginst the 
judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in a writ petition at his 
PREM CHAND v. DISTT. JUDGE (Goswami,!.) 
171 
instance which was dismissed. 
The District Judge, Dehra<lun, who 
A 
had earlier dismissed his appeal, has been impleaded as respondent 
No. 1. 
The facts may briefly be stated : 
The appellant is admittedJy the tenant under the 2nd respondent 
(to be described herinafter- as the respondent) in respect of two rooms· 
of House No. 11, Rajpur Road, Dehradun. 
This house has 
four 
rooms of which only two rooms are in occupation of the appellant. 
The other two rooms are in occupation of the respondent whose two 
sons stay there; the elder one living with his wife. The respondem is 
an old lady with an ailing husband and wants to have vacant posses-
sion of the two rooms so that the entire family can reside at the same 
place. With that end in view, on June 22, 1972, the respondent filed 
an application under section 3 of the United Provinces (Temporary) 
Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (U.P. Act No. III of 1947) 
for permission to bring a suit against the appellant for his eviction on 
the ground of bona fide personal requirement. 
During the pendency 
of this application before the Rent ControJ and Eviction Officer, the 
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 
1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) (hereinafter to be referred to as 
the Act) came into force with effect from July 15, 1972, repealing the 
earlier Act of 194 7 with certain savings as mentioned in section 43 of 
the Act. As a consequence of enforcement of the Act the proceedings 
under section 3 that were pending under the earlier Act converted into 
one under section 21 of the new Act (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972). 
The prescribed authority (The Additional District Magistrate) rejected 
the application. 
The respondent then preferred an appeal to 
the 
District Judge, Dehradun, who allowed the same on the ground of 
boniJ. fide requirement relying on the sole ground that Explanation (iv) 
to section 21 (1) of the Act 

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