LexRISHI KUMAR GOVIL versus MAQSOODAN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
RISHI KUMAR GOVIL
A
v.
MAQSOODAN AND ORS.
MARCH 28, 2007
[DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ .]
B
Rent Control and Eviction:
Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972; Ss. 16 and 21(/)(a):
C
Eviction-Shop in occupation of tenant-Landlady filing refoase
application for vacating the shop on ground that it was required for her son
to start fire arms repairing business-Allowed by prescribed authority-
Ajjirmed by appellate Authority-Challenge to-High Court remanding the D
matter to the appellate authority-Order of the prescribed authority affirmed
by the appellate authority-Challenged by the tenant-Dismissed by High
"
Court-On appeal, Held: Bonafide need of the landlord is a question of fact
and should not normally be interfered with-In the instant case, more than
20 years has elapsed since filing of release application by the landlady to
settle his son in business-Licence for repairing fire arms could be obtuined E
where vacant shop available-Under the circumstances, the prescribed
authority, appellate authority and the High Court rightly came to the
conclusion that the need of the landlady is bonafide and genuine-Hence
there is no scope for any interference.
Father of the appellant was tenant of the disputed premises in question, F
a shop. Respondent No.I-landlady purchased the said shop on 11.12.1979 from
the erstwhile landlord. She moved release application under Section 21(1)(a)
of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and
Eviction) Act, 1972 on the ground of bonafide need of her son. In the release
application, the landlady prayed that the shop was urgently required as her G
husband intended to start business of repairing fire arms in the disputed shop
for her son. The prescribed authority vide judgment and order dated
08.05.1986 allowed the release application and directed for eviction of the
tenant. However, in appeal, the order was upset by the appellate authority.
The landlady challenged the order of appellate authority before the High
483
II
-+
484
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 4 S.C.R.
A Court. The High Court remanded the case to the appellate authority with the
~
observation that the appellate authority shall decide the appeal afresh on merits
after taking into consideration the subsequent material events. During the
pendency of the appeal, the appellant-tenant died and was substituted by the
legal heirs. On remand, the appellate authority affirmed the order of the
B
prescribed authority holding that the landlady herself had offered a shop to
the tenant in the alternative, but he refused to t~ke possession of the same.
Aggrieved, the appellant-son of the tenant filed a writ petition which was
dismissed by the High. Hence the present appeal.
,_
Appellant-tenant contended that in terms of s.16 of the Act, so far as
.....,
c the commercial premises are concerned the parameters have to be different.
Respondent-landlady submitted that the premises was required for
starting the business of repairing of guns for her son; and that her need is
more hard pressing in comparison to the appellant-tenant.
D
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The bona fide personal need is a question of fact and normally
should not be interfered with. The High Court noted that when the Prescribed
"' .,_
Authority passed the order, son of the respondent-landlady was 20 years old
and the shop was sought to be released for the purpose of settling him in
~
E business. More than 20 years have elapsed and the son has become more
than 40 years of age but she has not been able to establish him as she has
still to get the possession of the shop and the litigation of the dispute is still
subsisting. (Para 19) [491-E-G]
1.2. The licence for repairing fire arms can only be obtained when there
F is a vacant shop available and in the absence of any vacant shop, licence cannot
)...
be obtained by an applicant. Therefore, the High Court came to the conclusion
concurring with that of the Prescribed Authority and Appellate Authority that
-{
the need of the landlady is bona fide and genuine. Considering the factual
findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority, Appellate Authority and
G analysed by the High Court, there is no scope for any interference in this
appeal. However, considering the period for which the premises in question
are in the occupation of the appellant, time is granted tExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.