SHIV SINGH CHAK versus BABY JAIN

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 566 · Decided: 07-02-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 566 
SHIV SINGH CHAK 
II. 
BABY JAIN 
(Civil Appeal No.1386 of 2008) 
FEBRUARY 7, 2008 
(K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI, R.V. RAVEENDRAN 
AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.) 
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Letting, Rent and 
c Eviction) Act, 1972: 
S. 21 (1 )(a) Explanation (i) - Non-residential building -
Petition for eviction of tenant -
On ground of bona fide 
requirement-Held: Since Explanation(i) to clause (a) of s.2(1) 
is inappiicable to a non-residential building, bar contained in 
D clause (i) of the Explanation will not operate where eviction 
petition is in regard to a non-residential building - But the fact 
that tenant has acquired a suitable alternative non-residential 
building may be urged as a good ground to show that no 
hardship will be caused to tenant if he is evicted from the 
E premises -
On facts, High Court committed an error in 
observing that Explanation (i) makes it unnecessary to 
examine bona tides of landlord and the issue of comparative 
hardship - However, High Court rightly affirmed the concurrent 
findings of fact recorded by Prescribed Authority and Appellate 
F Authority that landlord bona fide required the shop and tenant, 
because of availability of suitable. shop, would not be put to 
any hardship - Tenant granted time to vacate the shop subject 
to filing usual undertaking. 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1386 
G of 2008. 
H 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 28/10/2006 of 
the High Court of Judicature atAllahabadin CMWP No. 19764/ 
2006. 
566 
-'· " 
~·· 
~\ 
I 
SHIV SINGH CHAK v. BABY JAIN 
567 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.] 
; ~" 
J.C. Gupta, Rajesh and Anurag Tomar for the Appellant. 
A 
R. Mishra (for Mr. M.A. Chinnasamy) forthe Respondent. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI. Leave granted. Heard B 
learned counsel. 
' 
2. The respondent is the· landlord and appellant is the 
> 
tenant in regard to the petition schedule shop ('shop' for short) 
situated at Tundla, District Firozabad. The respondent filed an 
eviction petition before the Prescribed Authority, alleging that c 
she had let out the shop when she and her family was living at 
Etah, that her family had subsequently shifted to Tundla and that 
she required the shop for her husband to carry on his business 
in motor parts. She further alleged that the appellant owned and 
possessed several shops near to the schedule shop, but had D 
llr 
not vacated the shop belonging to her, and that he will not be 
put to any hardship if he is evicted as he could conveniently shift 
... 
and occupy his own shop . 
3. The appellant herein resisted the said petition. After 
considering the evidence, the Prescribed Authority, by judgment E. 
dated 14.3.2002, allowed the eviction petition under section 
21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of 
Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 ('Act' for short). The appeal 
filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Appellate authority 
... 
by judgment dated 13.1.2006. The writ petition filed by the F 
appellant before the High Court of Allahabad, challenging the 
order of the Appellate Authority was also dismissed by the order 
under appeal dated 28.10.2006. 
4. We find that the concurrent findings of the Prescribed 
Authority and Appellate Authority in favour of the landlord-
G 
"\ 
respondent, on the question of bona fide need and comparative 
hardship, have been rightly affirmed by the High Court and no 
ground is made out to interfere with the said findings of fact. 
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
568 
SUPREME. COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 
that the judgment of the High Court suffers from a serious legal 
infirmity as it wrongly placed reliance upon Explanation (i) in 
section 21 (1) of the Act to hold that it was not necessary for the 
landlord to prove that her need was bona fide or comparative 
greater hardship. According to him, explanation (i) applies 
only to residential buildings and not to non-residential 
buildings and the High Court could not have relied upon the 
said provision. 
6. For convenience, we may extract the relevant portion of 
section 21 of the Act as follows : 
"21. Proceedings for release of building under occupation 
of tenant. -
(1) The prescribed authority may, on an 
application of the landlord in that behalf, order the eviction 
of a tenant from the building under tenancy or any specified 
part thereof if it is satisfied that any of t

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