RAMESH CHANDRA BHANDARI versus RAM SINGH SALAL

Citation: [2016] 1 S.C.R. 520 · Decided: 18-01-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
[2016] l S.C.R. 520 
RAMESH CHANDRA BHANDARI 
v. 
RAM SINGH SALAL 
(Civil Appeal No. 575of2016) 
B 
JANUARYIS,2016 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and 
Eviction) Act, 1972: 
C 
s. 21 (l){a) - Eviction petition by appellant:landlord - Eviction 
sought on the ground of bona fide need of appellant-Army Official 
to start business for his physically disabled son - Second round of 
litigation - Eviction petition allowed by High Court, however 
respondent-tenant granted 2 years' time to vacate the suit shop -
D 
On appeal, held: High Court rightly allowed the eviction petition -
However, in the absence of any justifiable cause alleged by the 
respondent to prove extreme hardship as also in the absence of any 
statutory provision or any contract between the parties to that effect, 
the High Court was not justified in exercising its discretion and 
grant 2 years ' time to respondent to vacate the suit shop - High 
E 
Court should have appreciated the fact that the said process of 
litigation has .consumed 20 years and the hardship suffered by the 
appellant is more as compared to the respondent. 
Object and purpose of - Held: Act of 1972 is a legislation 
which provides for regulation and control of letting and rent of the 
F 
accommodation - It regulates and control eviction of tenants from 
accommodations - It provides for expeditious trial of eviction cases 
on ground of bona fide requirement of certain categories of 
landlords - Amended s. 2 I provides a statutory deeming presumption 
of the need set up by landlord who are serving or retired Indian 
soldier or their widows, to be sufficient if he sought eviction for his 
G personal requirement or for the benefit of any member of his family 
- Object is to relieve such landlord from the hardship so that he is 
able to get the premises vacated early for his personal use -
Appellant-landlord was denied this benefit due to long pendency of 
H 
520 
RAMESH CHANDRA BHANDARI v. RAM SINGH SALAL 
521 
the case - Respondent-tenant granted 7 months time to vacate the 
A 
premises subject to certain conditions. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 575 
of2016 
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.08.2015 of the High Court 
· ofUttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 1696 of2012 (MiS). 
Dr. Susliil Balwada, Abhishek Anand Rai, Divya Pandey for the 
Appellant. 
Manoj Swarup, Lalita Kohli, Abhishek Swarup, Charu Singhal, 
B 
Mis. Manoj Swarup & Co. for the Respondent. 
c 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 
31.08.2015 passed by the High Court ofUttarakhand atNainital in Writ 
Petition No. 1696 of2012 (Mis) whereby the High Court allowed the 
writ petition filed by the appellant-landlord thereby granting the decree 
for eviction against the respondent in relation to the suit shop but at the 
same time further granting two years' time to the respondent to vacate 
the suit shop. 
3. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. They, however, 
need mention in brief to appreciate the short controversy involved in the 
appeal. 
4. The appellant is the plaintiff whereas the respondent is the 
defendant. 
5. The appellant is the owner/landlord of the suit premises, which 
is situated atAlmora (Uttaranchal). The appellant was an Army official 
who retired in 1983. He let out the suit premises (shop)to the respondent 
on a.monthly rent of Rs.800i-, who carries on his business in the suit 
shop. 
6. The appellant filed an application under Section 21 (1 )(a) of 
the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)Act, 
1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the respondent seeking 
his eviction from the suit premises, The eviction was sought on the ground 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
522 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016] I S.C.R. 
A 
of appellant's bona fide need for sta1ting a business for his son who is 
physically disabled. 
7. The respondent denied the need and contested the eviction 
petition filed by the appellant. The matter reached to this Court at the 
instance of the appellant in the first round oflitigation which eventually 
B 
ended in granting liberty to the appellant to file a fresh eviction petition 
on the changed circumstances against the respondent for his eviction 
from the suit shop. 
8. This is how the second round of!itigation again started in 1997 
between the parties _

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