SUSHILA versus IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BANDA AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 286 · Decided: 17-12-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SUSHILA 
V. 
IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BANDA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 17, 2002 
B 
[R.C. LAHOTl AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
Rent Control & Eviction : 
UP. Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 
C 19721 UP. Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 
1972-Section 21(/)(a)!Rule 16(2)-Eviction-On the ground of Bonafide 
requirement-landlady requiring the premises for her married unemployed 
son for starting his business-Prescribed Authority passing eviction order 
while Appellate Court and High Court reversing the same-On appeal, Held, 
D even though period of tenancy is long, tenant is owning two shops whereas 
landlord has no alternate accommodation-Thus the need and requirement of 
landlady being bona fide and also comparative hardship being more to landlady 
eviction order restored. 
Appellant-landlady purchased a shop which was in occupation of 
E tenant-respondent. Even her husband purchased adjoining shop at the 
same time. That time their children were small. Few years later petitioner's 
son got married and also passed some electrical certificate course but 
remained unemployed. Appellant then filed eviction petition to get the shop 
vacated for her son to start his own business. She submitted that her 
F 
relations with her husband were not cordial and also that she had no 
~lternative shop whereas respondent-tenant had two shops. Eviction 
petition was allowed. However, both Appellate Court and High Court 
reversed the eviction order. Hence this appeal by the landlady. 
Respondent-tenant accepted that the need of the petitioner was 
G bonafide, however contended that there was more hardship to tenant than 
to the landlady. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I The period of tenancy as provided under Rule 16(2)(a) 
H 
286 
SUSHILA v. IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE 
287 
of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) A 
Rules, 1972 is only one of the factors to be taken into account in context 
with other facts and circumstances of the case. It cannot be a sole criterion 
or deciding factor to order or not the eviction of tenant. In the instant 
case even though the period of tenancy of respondent is no doubt long but 
availability of another shop to him where he can very well shift his business B 
as found by the Prescribed Authority, neutralizes the factor of length of 
tenancy in the accommodation in dispute. Furthermore, the landlady has 
no other shop where she can establish her son who is married and 
unemployed whereas the respondent has two shops. Also there is nothing 
on the record to indicate that the business of father of appellant's son is 
so huge or that it is a very nourishing business so as to attract application C 
of Rule 16(2)(c). Considering the facts in the light of Rule 16, the balance 
tilts in favour of the unemployed son of landlady whose need is certainly 
bonajide and has also been so accepted by respondent-tenant. 1293-D-GI 
2. Prescribed Authority considered the factor that the appellant had 
shown that her son had undergone a training course in household electrical D 
wiring and had obtained a certificate from Industrial Training Institute 
and he did not get any government job and wanted to be self-employed 
by starting a shop of electrical goods and utensils but Appellate Court 
expressed doubt about the certificate. The whole approach to the point 
was misdirected. Be that as it may, it is made clear that even by excluding E 
the factor of appellant's son being technically educated, otherwise as well 
the need and requirement of the landlady is bona fide on considering the 
same in the light of Rule 16 of the Rules and in the background of 
comparative hardship which would be more to the landlady, in the event 
of disallowing the application for eviction. Thus, the Appellate Court erred 
in setting aside the order passed by trial Court allowing the application F 
of petitioner-landlady and High Court also erred in dealing with the matter 
mechanically. 1294-B-EI 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5124 of 
1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.4.1997 of the Allahabad 
High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 1472 of 1985. 
Yogeshwar Prasad and Mrs. Rachna Gupta for the Appellant. 
G 
Sudhir Chandra, Sidharth Bhatnagar, Achintya Dwivedi and Prashant H 
288 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A Kumar for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BRIJESH KUMAR, J. The d

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