SHAMSHAD AHMAD & ORS. versus TILAK RAJ BAJAJ (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 13 S.C.R. 353 · Decided: 11-09-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 13 S.C.R. 353 
') ' 
SHAMSHAD AHMAD & ORS. 
A 
v. 
TILAK RAJ BAJAJ (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & 
ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 8067 of 2004) 
-; 
SEPTEMBER 11, 2008 
B 
1 
' 
[C.K. THAKKER AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, 
JJ.] 
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, c 
Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - s. 21(1)(a) - Eviction of shop 
- Sought on the ground of bonafide requirement for carrying 
on business - Denied by prescribed authority- Allowed by 
appellate authority- High Court in writ petition denying the 
same - On appeal, held: Landlord was entitled to eviction -
D 
-4 
He established his bonafide requirement - Experience in the 
business in question and tl1e high living standard of the 
landlord were not relevant for determining his requirement of 
the premises -
Tenant had also failed to establish that no 
alternative accommodation was available to him -
Hence 
cannot be said that he would suffer greater hardship - Rent E 
control and Eviction. 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 and 227 -
Jurisdiction under - Scope of - Held: Though powers under 
" ...,, 
the provisions are very wide, but should be exercised within 
F 
limits of law - Power being supervisory in nature, the court 
should not act as a court of appeal or a court of error - The 
power should be exercised most sparingly only in order to 
keep the subordinate court and inferior Tribunals within the 
limit of law. 
G 
Appellant-landlords had let out the property in 
,... 
question (shop) to the predecessor of the respondent-
tenants. They filed a suit for possession in respect of the 
property. During pendency thereof, they filed an 
353 
H 
354 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 
A application before Prescribed Authority u/s, 21 (1 )(a) of 
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and 
Eviction) Act, 1972, for eviction of the shop on the ground 
of bonafide requirement. The plea was that the shop was 
required for carrying on business of readymade garments 
B by the husband of applicant No. 6 with his daughter, after 
his retirement from Government service. Prescribed 
Authority dismissed the application on the grounds that 
the need could not have been said to be bonafide because 
neither husband of applicant No. 6 nor his daughter had 
C any experience in the business of readymade garments; 
that they did not need to start the business as they 
belonged to a high status family living in high standard; 
and that tenant would suffer greater hardship than the 
landlord, if eviction order is passed. 
D 
Appellate authority ordered eviction of the property, 
holding that the same was genuinely required by 
husband of applicant No. 6 for starting the business as 
he had retired from service and also for his daughter to 
set up an office of advocate, who during the pendency of 
E the litigation, had become a practicing lawyer; and that 
tenant could not be said to suffer greater hardship than 
the landlord because he made no attempt to get alternative 
accommodation. 
High Court allowed the writ petition, denying 
F eviction. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 In view of the facts and circumstances in 
their entirety and on the findings recorded by the appellate 
G authority, High Court was not right in interfering with the 
order pat:sed by the appellate authority and in dismissing 
the application of the landlords. [Para 50] [372-A] 
1.2 The prescribed authority can undoubtedly decide 
whether the need or requirement of landlords was or was 
H 
SHAMSHAD AHMAD & ORS. v. TILAK RAJ BAJAJ 
355 
(DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. 
not bona fide. It can record a finding against the landlords A 
if such requirement is not proved. But the authority 
cannot decline the prayer of the landlords on the ground 
that they belonged to upper class society having facilities 
of car, etc. Similarly, the Prescribed Authority was wrong 
in commenting on the experience of the landlords in B 
business of readymade garments. Again, the authority 
went wrong in stating that if the applicants wanted to do 
business in readymade garments, they needed 'an office' 
and place of godown for preparation of readymade 
garments to be exported. The appellate authority, c 
therefore, rightly set aside the said finding describing the 
ground weighed with the authority as 'flimsy'. [Paras 28 
and 29] [365 C-F] 
1.3 Even if the tenant was right in submitting that the 
--4 
landlords belonged to a higher strata of society, it did 

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