LexYADVENDRA ARYA AND ANR. versus MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
Y ADVENDRA ARYA AND ANR. v. MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA NOVEMBER 28, 2007 [DR. ARIJIT P ASAY AT AND LOKESHWARSINGHPANTA,JJ.] Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972: s. 21 (1 )(a)-Applicationfor release of shop-On ground of bona fide need of landlord to start his independent business-Other shops being rented accommodations in possession of tenants-HELD: A B c Prescribed Authority and High Court rightly allowed application of D landlord-Tenants would vacate the premises as directed in the judgment. Respondents-landlord filed an application for release of his shop under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, on the ground E that he being an unemployed educated and married youngman, in order to earn his livelihood, bona fide needs to start his independent business and there was no possibility of his being employed in the business of his father. It was also stated that the other shops were rented accommodations in occupation of the tenants. The Prescribed p Authority allowed the application, but the appellate authority allowed the appeal of the tenants. However, the High Court allowed the writ petition of the landlord. In the instant appeal filed by the tenants it was contended for the appellants that parameters relating to bona fide needs and G comparative hardship were not considered in proper perspective and the matter should have been remanded to the authorities for consideration. 615 H 616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R. A Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: Considering the factual background in the light of principles as stated by this Court*, the inevitable conclusion is that the application of the landlord has rightly been allowed by the High Court. In such matters practice of remanding the case to the 8 authorities for further consideration has been deprecated by this Court in a large number of cases.** Considering the fact that the tenants are carrying on business in the premises, time is granted to them to vacate the premises in question as directed in the judgment. c [Para 16 and 17) [624-E, FJ *Akhileshwar Kumar and Ors. v. Mustaqim and Ors., AIR 2003 SC 532; Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery & Co., [2000) 1 SCC 679; Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal, [2002) 5 SCC 397; G. C. Kapoor v. Nand Kumar Bhasin, AIR (2002) SC 200 and Mst. D Bega Begum & Ors. v. Abdul Ahad Khand (d) by Lrs. & Ors., [1979] 1 sec 273, relied on. * * R. VE. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and VP. Temple and Anr., (2003] 8 SCC 752, relied on. E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5483 of 2007. From the Judgment and final Order dated 23.8.2006 of the High Court ofUttamachal at Nainital in W.P. No. 247/2002 MIS. F Yunus Malik, Abhishek Vikas and Prashant Chaudhary for the Appellants. N.D.B. Raju, C.M. Angadi and Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for the ,. Respondent. G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Uttranchal High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the· H respondent. Said respondent undisputedly is the landlord of the premises YADVENDRAARYAv. MUKESHKUMARGUPTA [PASAYAT,J.] which were let out to the present appellants. 617 3. An application under Section 2l(l)(a) ofU.P. (Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (Act No.13 of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was filed by the respondent against A the appellants praying for the release of the Shop situated at Mahalia Bazar Ganj (Park Road), Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, which was B under tenancy on the ground that the respondent has passed High School Certificate Examination and is unemployed and he has no independent business to earn his livelihood and, therefore, he wants to do the business of Electrical Goods, T.V., V.C.R., Music System, Cooking Range etc. in the said Shop. C 4. It was, further, stated by the landlord in his release application that his father Sri Mithilesh Kumar Gupta is doing the independent business in the name ofMithilesh Kumar and Brothers of which his father is the sole owner and there is no possibility of employing any other person, as D the shop in possession of his father is not so elaborate 'so as to accommodate the respondent also. It was also st
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.