SUDHA AGRAWAL versus XTH ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 62 · Decided: 04-08-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
~c 
SUDHA AGRA WAL 
v. 
XTH ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS. 
AUGUST 4, 1999 
.[V .N. KHARE AND SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUAD RI, JJ .] 
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 
1972-Sections 12,16,21 (1) (a), 21 (1) fourth proviso, explanation (1) to 
fourth proviso of S. 21 (1 )-Eviction petition filed by landlord on the ground 
of bonafide need-Landlord contending that his need has to be presumed 
bonafide in view of explanation (i) to fourth proviso of S.21 (1 )-Applicability 
of the said explanation presumed in favour of the landlord-Effect of -Held, 
the only effect of application of explanation(i) is that the tenant is not 
entitled to contest the application filed by the landlord and the Prescribed 
D Authority is not required to compare the hardship of the landlord with that 
of the tenant but there is no presumption in favour of the landlord that his 
need is bonafide by virtue of application of the said explanation and the 
landlord has to allege and prove that his requirement is bonafide in order 
E 
F 
to evict. the tenant from the premises. 
Presumption of bonafide need under explanation (i) to fourth proviso 
of S.21 (1) shall be contrary to the requirement of S. I 6-Jnterpretation of -
Held, tha.t a provision of a statute is required tv be inte1preted in such a 
manner which may avoid possible conflict in various provisions of a statute-
Interpretation of Statutes. 
Appellant-landlord filed an application before the Prescribed Authority 
for eviction of the respondent-tenant on the ground of bonafide need. The 
ground floor of the premises was being used by the tenant for non-residential 
purposes, whereas the first floor was being used for residential purpose. The 
G said application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority on the ground that 
the benefit of explanation (i) to fourth proviso of sub-section (1) of Section 
21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent &Eviction) Act, 
1972 was not available to the landlord since the premises was let out to the 
tenant partially for non-residential purpose and partially for residential 
purposes; and that the need set up by the landlord was not bonafide. Landlord's 
H 
62 
S. AGRAWAL v. XTH ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE 
63 
appeal against the said order was dismissed by the appellate authority. Writ A 
Petition filed by the landlord was also dismissed by the High Court. Hence, 
these appeals. 
The appellant contended that in view of explanation (i) to fourth proviso 
of sub-section (l) of.Section 21 of the Act, the tenant besides being debarred B 
from contesting the application filed by the landlord, the need set up by the 
landlord in the application has also to be presumed bonajide. 
The respondent contended that explanation (i) to fourth proviso of sub-
section (l) of Section 21 of the Act is not attracted; and alternatively, even 
if it is held applicable, the landlord independently has to prove that his need C 
is bonajide and the alleged need set out in the application can~ot be presumed 
to be bonafide. 
This Court presumed that benefit of explanation (i) to fourth proviso 
of sub-section (I) of Section 21 of the Act is available to the appellant 
landlord without deciding the said question. 
D 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. A perusal of Section 2l(l)(a), fourth proviso of Section 21(1) 
and explanation (i) to the said proviso shows that in cases where explanation E 
(i) is applicable no presumption can be raised with regard to the need of the 
landlord as bonafide. The only effect of application of explanation (i) is that 
the tenant is not entitled to contest the application filed by the landlord and 
the Prescribed Authority is not required to compare the hardship of the 
landlord with that of the tenant which he is otherwise required to do under 
fourth proviso of Section 21(1) of the Act. The landlord can get an order of F 
release in his favour only when he proves his need as bonajide before the 
Prescribed Authority. It is no doubt true that the application of landlord is 
uncontested as the tenant is out of field, still the landlord has to establish 
his bonafide need. In fact the landlord is relluired to stand on his own legs 
and he cannot derive any advantage of absence of defence of the tenant The G 
proceedings before the Prescribed Authority is like an-uncontested suit 
where there is no defence of the defendant. In such a suit plaintiff in order 
to get decree must prove his case to the

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