SMT. SHANTI DEVI AND ANR. versus SWAMI ASHANAND & ANR.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 694 · Decided: 20-12-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SMT. SHANTI DEVI AND ANR. 
v. 
SWAMI ASHANAND & ANR. 
DECEMBER 20, 2002 
B 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
UP. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 
C 1972-Section 21(/)(a)-Eviction-Sought by a sanyasi-On the ground of 
reconstruction of building wher~in he would perform religious activities 
including propagation of religion-Held, purpose for which premises is sought 
is within purview of the provision-Hence tenanted premises liable to be 
vacated 
D 
Suit premises was sought to be vacated by respondent No. I-landlord 
who was a Sanyasi, from the four tenants including the. predecessor of 
appellant-tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement for reconstruction 
after demolition of the building u/s 2l(l)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings 
(Regulation of Letting, Rent a_nd Eviction) Act, 1972. Eviction was sought 
E for the purpose of constructing a residence alongwith a temple and a 
satsang hall, where, he would be delivering sermons. Eviction was allowed 
by the trial Court, appellate authority as well as High Court. Three of 
the four tenants vacated the premises. 
Appellants, widow and one of the sons of the fourth tenant, in appeal 
F to this Court contended that the purpose for which the premises are sought 
to be got vacated does not fall within the purview of Section 21(1)(a) of 
the Act. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: I.I. It cannot be said that the purpose for which the premises 
H 
are sought to be got vacated does not fall within the purview of Section 
2l(l)(a) of the U.P. Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) 
Act, 1972. Clause (a) of sub-section (I) of Section 21 is very widely worded. 
Demolition and reconstruction for occupation by landlord himself either 
694 
SHANTI DEVI v. SW AMI ASHANAND [R.C. LAHOTI, J.] 
695 
" for residential purpose or for purposes of any p·rofession, trade or calling A 
is permissible. The words 'profession, trade or calling' are very wide and 
include therein all activities wherein a person may usefully and/or gainfully 
engage himself. (696-H; 697-A-BI 
1.2. In the instant case, it cannot be doubted that the respondent-
landlord is a sanyasi and his calling is performance of religious activities B 
including pr_opagation of religion by delivering sermons and attracting 
devotees. Though the respondent does not appear to be carrying on such 
activities like a commercial activity, the fact remains that the respondent 
depends on such activities also to cater to his livelihood therefrom. The 
premises vacated by other tenants have not been re-let or made any misuse C 
of. The major part of the building stands already vacated and it is a very 
small portion of the building which continues to be in possession of the 
appellants and unless they vacate, the proposed reconstruction cannot be 
carried out. (697-8-C( 
CIVIL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 633 of 2002. 0 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.7.2000 of the Allahabad High 
Court in CMWP No. 24833 of 1998. 
Sushendra Kumar Chauhan, Ms. Rashm Jan for R.P. Gupta for the 
Appellants. 
E 
Anuvrat Sharma, Alok Singh for Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R.C. LAHOTI, J. The suit premises is part of a building situated in the 
pilgrimage city of Haridwar. The building was in occupation of four sets of 
tenants occupying different portions. Swami Ashanand, the respondent No. I, 
who is admittedly the landlord-owner, initiated proceedings for eviction against 
F 
all the tenants on the· ground available under Section 21(I)(a) of the U.P. 
Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The G 
eviction was ordered against all the tenants. Three tenants have given up the 
possession over the premises in their occupation to the landlord-respondent. 
One of the tenants, namely Sheet Chandra, who has also expired during the 
pendency of these proceedings arid whose widow and two sons are respectively 
the two appellants and proforma respondent No. 3 are pursuing the H 
696 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A proceedings. The appellate authority has dismissed their appeal and the High 
Court too has dismissed their writ petition. This appeal is by special leave. 
The case pleaded by the respondent No. I and which has been found 
proved by all the three Courts is that he is a sanyasi. His object in life is to 
preach religion and perform religio

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