Holding

The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' finding that the landlady's need was bona‑fide and that the eviction order under Section 21(1)(a) was valid, dismissing the appeal.

Summary

The appellant, Deep Chandra Juneja, occupied the ground floor of a house in Kanpur owned by Smt. Lajwanti Kathuria since 1972. The landlady filed a second release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the UP Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, claiming a bona‑fide need for additional accommodation for her children and grandchildren. The Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority, after examining evidence that the tenant and his family already had separate accommodation, held that the landlady's need was genuine and that the comparative hardship favored her, and ordered eviction. The High Court, relying on these findings, dismissed the tenant's writ petition, and the Supreme Court affirmed that judgment, finding no illegality or error of jurisdiction. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and granted the tenant time to vacate the premises.

Issues considered

The validity of the second release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the UP Urban Buildings Act, 1972.
Whether the landlady's claim of bona‑fide need for additional accommodation is genuine and supported by facts.
Whether Rule 16 of the UP Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972, precludes eviction given the length of tenancy.
Whether the appellate courts erred in allowing the second release application and in not considering it an abuse of process.

Legislation cited

U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972s. 21(1)(a), s. 30(1)

Subjects

rent controlevictionbona fide needUP Urban Buildings Actlandlord-tenant disputecomparative hardshipRule 16release application

Judgment

I
l
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 684 I

I
A DEEP CHANDRA JUNEJA
v.
SMT. LAJWANTI KATHURIA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7300 of 2005)
JULY 10, 2008 ~
B
[C.K. THAKKER AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA,
JJ.]

Rent Control and Eviction:
c UP Urban Buildings ( Regulation of Letting, Rent and I

Eviction) Act, 1972 - s. 21(1)(a) - Bona fide requirement - r

Release application - Need of additional accommodation by
. landlord and his family members - Allowed by Prescribed
Authority as also Appellate Authority - Upheld by High Court
D - Interference with- Held: Does not call for interference- Con- t
current findings of facts by courts below that tenant and his 'J
family members had separate accommodation in the City - I-
....
Finding of bona fide need and comparative hardship in favour
of landlord - Plea that landlord again let some portion of house
E to new tenants on higher rent not established - More so; it
cannot be said that in view of the length of the period of ten-
ancy, eviction of tenant in violation of Rule 16 - UP Urban
Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules,
1972- r. 16.
F The respondent..landlady was the owner of a house "'
in Kanpur city. She let out ttie ground floor of the premises
to the appellant-tenant for residential purpose. Ten years
later, respondent filed application for release of the pre-
mises. The Prescribed Authority dismissed the applica-
G tion. However, the Appellate Authority allowed the appeal
and directed the appellant to vacate the premises and shift F
to an alternate accommodation being offered by the land-
lady. However, the accommodation was not vacated. ~-

Thereafter, the landlady filed second release application
H 684
DEEP CHANDRA JUNEJA v. SMT. LAJWANTI KATHURIA 685
(DEAD) THROUGH L.RS.

u/s 21 (1 )(a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of A
· Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 for the need of her
sons, daughters-in-law and grand children as they were
facing tremendous inconvenience and hardships on ac-
count of shortage of accommodation. T:he appellant con-
tended that the claim was not bona fide and genuine; th.at B
the sons of the landlady were residing with her and tt:le
landlady did not need more accommodation because
other tenants who were living in the building had vacated
the accommodations, which were again let out by her to
new tenants on higher rent; and that the landlady wa,s c
having one more house. The Prescribed Authority al-
lowed the release application. Appellate Authority uphel'd
the order. The appellant-tenant filed writ petition. The
Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ peti'-
tion holding that the courts below after taking into con.-
0
sideration the entire material on record, recorded finding
of bona fide need and comparative hardship in favour of
landlord, thus, interference was not called for. It directed
the appellant to vacate the premises within one year;
Hence the present appeal.
E
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 From the pleadings of the parties, both
the prescribed authority and the Appellate Authority noted
that the landlady at the time of filing of the second release
application was residing in the same house with her el- F
der son, younger son, and married daughter and their fam-
ily. She filed affidavit in support of her release application
stating inter alia her need for the accommodation. The
appellant-tenant denied the genuine requirement of the
landlady. The Prescribed Authority, on assessment of the G
entire evidence on record, came to the conclusion that
the appellant-tenant failed to establish that the landlady
had let out some portions of the house to the new ten-
ants on higher rent. The Prescribed Authority stated in its
order that the landlady filed on record a paper in which H
686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.
I

A the residential address of the appellant-tenant-Ghaoo
Khera, and other papers also revealed the same address
of the appellant-tenant. On the basis of the oral as well as
documentary evidence on record, the prescribed author-
ity came to the conclusion that the appellant-tenant is re-
8 siding with his son V and his family members. The aver-
ments of the landlady in her eviction application that the
appellant-tenant has got House No.140~C Ramgali,
Harjinder Nagar, 220, Patel Nagar, 1/382 N-2 Road, Harjinder
Nagar, has been supported by AK and RK in their affida-
C vits. The Prescribed Authority noticed that in the Voter List
for the year 1995-99 name of third son of the appellant-ten-
ant, was not shown as occupant of premises No.124A/272,
Block 11, Govind Nagar, in fact, the third son at the relevant
time, was residing at house No. 251 and later on he shifted .~-

to premises No" 124A/272. The appellant-tenant during the t
D pendency of the eviction proceedings did not make any
attempt to secure alternate accommodation and has been
found living with other members of the family in some other
house and the Prescribed Authority as also the Appellate
Authority on scrutiny of the evidence concluded that House
E No.124A/272 was owned by the father of the appellant-ten-
ant, which was transferred in the name of the third son of
the appellant-tenant, by executing a collusive Will with clear
intention to show that th.e appellant does not own any
house in Kanpur City and in order to frustrate the need of
F the landlady. [Paras 8, 10 and 11] [692-A,B,C, 694-C,D,E,F,G,
695-A,B,C]
1.2 Both the courts below recorded concurrent find-
ings of facts that the appellant-tenant and his family mem-
G bers have got separate accommodation in Kanpur City and
on the basis of the evidence on record, the requirement of
the accommodation of the landlady is bona fide and genu-
ine and the comparative hardship also is more pressing to
the landlady in comparison to the appellant-tenant. In that
view of the matter, the High Court in its jurisdiction under
H
DEEP CHANDRA JUNEJA ~~ SMT. LAJWANTI KATHURIA 687
(DEAD) THROUGH L.RS.
)

Article 226 of the Constitution has rightly dismissed the A
writ petition of the appellant-tenant on the premises of con-
current findings of facts. [Para 11] [695-C,D,E]
1.3 In the backdrop of the facts, the landlady could
file an application before the prescribed authority for the
eviction of the appellant-tenant from the premises under 8
tenancy or any specified portion thereof and the pre-
scribed authority after satisfying itself that the ground as
stipulated in Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regu-
·1ation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 does exist,
the eviction order has been validly passed against the ap- c
pellant-tenant. [Para 12] [687-A,B,C]
1.4 Rule 16 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation
of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972, prescribes cer-
tain factors which have also to be taken into account by
D
the prescribed authority while considering the applic;:t-
tion for eviction of a tenant on the ground of bona fide
need. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 16 relates to the cases of evic-
tion from an accommodation for the purpose of residence
by the landlord or any members of his family. Consider-
ing the facts in the light of Rule 16 pressed into service E
on behalf of the appellant-tenant that taking into consid-
eration the length of the period of tenancy, the eviction of
the appellant-tenant from the premises in question is in
violation of the provision of Rule 16, cannot be accepted.
> [Para 13] [695-F,G, 696-A] F

1.5 Having regard to the well-reasoned concurrent
findings and reasoning recorded by the prescribed au-
thority .and the Appellate Authority, which are affirmed by
the High Court in writ petition, the impugned judgment
G
warrants no interference inasmuch as no illegality, infir-
mity or error of jurisdiction could be shown by the appel-
!ant-tenant. [Para 15] [696-D,E]
Gaya Prasad v Pradeep Srivastava (2001) 2 SCC 604;
Prativa Devi v TV Krishnan (1996) 5 SCC 353; Rishi Kumar H
688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 10 S.C.R.

A Gavit v. Maqsoodan & Ors. (2007) 4 SCC 465 - referred to .
. CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7300
of 2005
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.2.2004 of the High
B Court of Judicature at Allahabad in W.P. NO. 3132 of 2004
Z.M. Naiyer and Satish Vig for the Appellant.
Anil Kumar Gupta-II and K.K. Gupta for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J. 1. This appeal is directed
against the judgment and order dated 06.02.2004 passed by the
learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant-tenant. Challenge
in the writ petition was to the order passed by the prescribed au-
D
thority as affirmep by the learned Additional District Judge, Court +
No. 1, Kanpur Nagar (Appellate Authority) allowing the release
. '
application of Smt. Lajwanti Kathuria respondent-landlady.
2. Facts, in brief, leading to the origin of this case, are as
E under:-
Smt. Lajwanti Kathuria, respondent-landlady was the
owner of house No. 251 Ghaoo Khera Post, Chakeri, Harjinder
Nagar, Kanpur. The appellant herein is the tenant on the ground
floor of the demised premises consisting of one room with doo-
F chatti (store), courtyard, one bathroom, one toilet and kitchen ~

since the year 1972 on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/-. The landlady
filed release application No. 18 of 2001 under Section 21 (1 )(a)
of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and
Eviction) Act, 1972 [for short 'the Act'] for the need of her sons,
G daughters-in-law and grand children. In the release application,
respondent-landlady stated that her husband Shri Chaman Lal
Kathuria, before his death, was carrying on kiryana business in r--

small portion of the premises. She stated that she has a large
family to support comprising herself, two married sons and their
H children and one daughter and her children. According to the
DEEP CHANDRA JUNEJA v. SMT. LAJWANTI KATHURIA 689
.., (DEAD) THROUGH L.RS. [PANTA, J.]

landlady, she urgently needed additional accommodation to pro- A
vide proper and comfortable living rooms, kitchens and bath-
rooms for her children who ar~ facing tremendous inconvenience
and hardships on account of shortage of accommodation.
The release application was contested by the appellant-
• tenant by filing written statement and denying the claim of the B
landlady. He, inter alia, took the stand that the claim of the land-
lady was not bona fide and genuine and the release applica-
tion has been moved with the mal-intention of harassing him. It
was also alleged that the sons of the landlady were residing
with her and the landlady did not need more accommodation c
because other tenants who were living in the building had va-
cated the accommodations, which were again let out by her to
·new tenants on higher rent. He also stated that the landlady
was having one more house No. 377, N-2 Road, Lal Bungalow,
Harjinder Nagar, Kanpur. D
Both the parties were directed by the prescribed authority to
submit their affidavits in support of their claims and counter-claims.
The prescribed authority vide order dated 05.03.2003 al-
lowed the release application of the landlady and directed the E
appellant-tenant to hand over vacant possession of the rented
accommodation to the landlady within one month.
Against the said order; Rent Appeal No.17 of 2003 was
filed by the appellant-tenant before the Appellate Authority, which
was dismissed on 05.01.2004. F
Being aggrieved against and dissatisfied with the judg-
ment and order of the Appellate Authority, the appellant-tenant
preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3132 of 2004 before the
High Court of Allahabad, which was dismissed by the learned
G
Single Judge by impugned judgment. The relevant paragraph
'll of the judgment is extracted as under:-

"The courts below after taking into consideration the entire
material on record, recorded finding of bona fide need and
comparative hardship in favour of landlord. The impugned H
690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 10 S.C.R

A order requires no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
However, the petitioner is granted one year's time to vacate
the premises, provided that within one month from today,
8 he files an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority •
that on or before expiry of aforesaid period of one year he
will willingly vacate and handover the possession of the
house in dispute to the landlord."
..
3. Now, the appellant-tenant has preferred this appeal by
C way of special leave challenging the correctness and validity of ·
the order of the High· Court.
. _,.

4. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent-land-·
lady died and was substituted by her legal heirs.
D 5. Mr. Z. M. Naiyer, learned counsel appearing on behalf +-
of the appellant-tenant, contended that the approach of the High
Court in dismissing the Writ Petition in slip-shod manner with-
out recording reasons is erroneous. He submittad that the courts
below have committed manifest error of law and jurisdiction in
E · entertaining arid allowing second application for release of the
demised premises as her first application for the same relief
was already allowed by the Appellate Authority in Appeal No.4
of 1983 and two release orders in respect of the same accom-
modation, one conditional and other blanket, cannot co-exist .
F and that being the position, the impugned orders are vitiated in ...
law. He next contended that the second application for the re-
lease of the demised premises filed by the landlady was an
abuse of process of law and the courts below should not have
entertained the second release application of the landlady to
perpetrate a fraud in judicial proceedings to achieve her nefari-
G ous designs. It was also contended that the landlady before her
death had possessed 11 cozy rooms with other allied accommo- ,,.
dation for th~ need of her 5 adults and 4 minor members of the
family, which are quite sufficient for their peaceful living, but while
determining the bona fide need of the landlady the cou1ts below
H have ignored the comparative hardship of the appellant-tenant.
DEEP CHANDRA JUNEJA v. SMT. LAJWANTI KATHURIA 691
(DEAD) THROUGH L.RS. [PANTA, J.]

6. Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta-II, learned counsel appearing on A
behalf of the respondents-legal representative of landlady, on the
other hand, contended that the prescribed authority on proper and
careful consideration of the evidence led by the parties before it,
passed a reasoned order of eviction against the appellant-tenant,
the said order has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority and B
also by the High Court. He submitted that this Court ordinarily
should not interfere with the concurrent findings of facts recorded
by the competent courts/authorities in exercise of its power and
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
7. We have duly considered the respective contentions of C
the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire ma-
terial on record.
8. The facts narrated hereinbefore are not in dispute to
the extent that the landlady rented the demised premises to the
0
appellant-tenant for residential purpose. It appears from the
record that on 26.11.1982/27 .11.1982 an application bearing
R.C. No.67 of 1982 was filed by late Smt. Lajwanti Kathuria -
landlady against the appellant-tenant for release of the demised
premises. The said application was dismissed by the prescribed
authority pre-dominantly on the ground that the premises ear- E
lier vacated by some tenants were not utilised by the landlady
for the use and occupation of her family members, but in fact
those were let out to new tenants. However, the appeal filed by
the landlady against the impugned order of the prescribed au-
thority was allowed by the Appellate Authority on 21.05.1983, F
whereby the appellant-tenant was directed to vacate the de-
mised premises and shift to an alternate accommodation be-
ing offered by the landlady. It was also ordered that in case the
appellant-tenant failed to vacate the premises in question within
the stipulated period, the landlady would get possession of the G
accommodation through Court proceedings. The appellant-ten-
ant submitted that the landlady did not provide the alternative
accommodation in terms of the order of the Appellate Authority
and allowed the stalemate to continue. The landlady filed sec-
ond release application which was registered Rent Case No.18 H
692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.

A of 2001 on the file of the prescribed authority, Kanpur Nagar.
From the pleadings of the parties, both the prescribed authority
and the Appellate Authority have noted that the landlady at the
time of filing of the release a·pplication in the year 2001 was
residing in the same house with her elder son, Satish Kathuria,
B his educated wife Smt. Namita and her grandsons Abhishek, ~
Rajat and grand-daughter Karishma and younger son Joginder
Kathuria, his educated wife Smt. Rajani, grand-daughter Ta nu;
her married daughter Smt. Neelam Khanna, son-in-law Manish
Khanna and their daughters Kum. Kirti and Kum. Neha. She
c filed affidavit in support of her release application stating inter
alia that ·her elder son is a Contractor/Builder, and he needs
separate room for his educated wife and children who are study-
ing in convent school; she needed room for her second son
Joginder Kathuria, an Advocate and his educated wife and
D daughter and separate accommodation for her married daugh-
ter, son-in-law and their children who have frequently been pay- t
ing visits to her house because of her old age. She also stated
that she needed one room for her old lady friends, one room for
prayer purpose and one room to be used as a Museum to pre-
serve some articles of ·her late husband. She stated that the
E appellant-tenant took the demised premises on rent in July 1972
with clear understanding that being a member of Indian Air
Force, he would be transferred from his place of posting within
a period of 3 to 4 years and then he would vacate the premises
forthwith. The appellant-tenant retired in the year 1984 and there-
F after he started running a small provision store in the name and
style of 'Juneja Provision Store'. Rajiv Juneja, the elder son of
the appellant-tenant, is doing construction work in the name of
M/s Juneja Engineering and also doing the business of chemi-
cal sale and purchase in one portion of House No.229 Patel
G Nagar, Shanker Nagar. He is living in rented accommodation .
along with his wife and children at 140-C Ramgali, Harjinder
Nagar, Kanpur, where. he is in occupation of three rooms, one
bathroom, latrine, kitchen and verandah. He is also doing travel
agency business in the name of Juneja Travels at Pardemanpura,
H Harjinder Nagar, Kanpur. It was stated that Ajay Juneja, the
DEEP CHANDRA JUNEJA v. SMT. LAJWANTI KATHURIA 693
(DEAD) THROUGH L.RS. [PANTA, J.]

second son of the appellant-tenant, is a teacher in Virendra A
Swaroop Education Centre and his wife is doing some busi-
ness and they are living in House No. 124A/272, Block 11,
Govind Nagar, Kanpur, having five rooms, latrine, bathroom,
kitchen, verandah and courtyard.
9. One more son of the appellant-tenant, namely, Vijay 8
Juneja, is working as a T.V. Engineer in Thomson Co. and his
educated wife is a teacher. They are occupying two rooms, la-
trine, bathroom, kitchen and verandah as tenants in premises
No. 1-A Ghaoo Khera Post Chakeri, Kanpur. The landlady also
contended that the appellant-tenant had sub-let the rented ac- C
commodation to one R. N. Singh on monthly rent of Rs.300/-, in
respect of which Civil Suit No. 1112 of 2000 titled R. N. Singh v.
0. C. Juneja is pending, in the Court of Civil Judge (J/D), Kanpur
Nagar. The landlady also stated that she filed Civil Suit No.397
of 1997 against the appellant-tenant in the Court of J.S.C.C., D
Kanpur Nagar, for eje,ctment of the appellant-tenant inter alia on
the grounds of default in payment of rent, sub-tenancy and dam-
age to the demised house and the said suit is still pending. It
was also stated that the appellant-tenant has constructed a house
over one plot at Gandhi Gram and the appellant-tenant and his E
family members are financially very sound. The daughter of the
appellant-tenant is married and she is residing at Lucknow.
10. The appellant-tenant denied the genuine requirement
of the landlady. However, he submitted that in fact there are
only nine family members of the landlady and not ten to thirteen F
members as alleged by her. He stated that in the past over
several years, the landlady had evicted many tenants and there-
after she let out the accommodations to other persons during
the pendency of the present eviction application. Looking to
the strength of the family members of the landlady and accom- G
modation available with them, the landlady did not need any
additional accommodation as per the version of the appellant-
tenant. He stated that he is living in the demised premises with
his wife, son Rajiv and his wife Gayatri, grandson Nikhil and his
second son Vijay and his wife Rinku, whereas his third son Ajay H
694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. I
j
'
.,
A Juneja is living in a separate house No.124A/272, Block 11, Govind
Nagar, Kanpur, which was owned by Ajay's grandfather late Shri
Sant Ram Juneja. He stated that he has no other accomr:nodation
in the city of Kanpur. He denied the allegation of sub-letting the
rented accommodation to one R.N. Singh at the rate of Rs.300/-
B per month and stated that the landlady got false suit instituted against
him through R.N. Singh. He submitted that as the landlady refused
to accept the rent he, therefore, has been regularly depositing the
settled rent under Section 30(1) of the Act in the Court of Civil Judge,
Junior Division, Kanpur Nagar. He pleaded that if he is ordered to
c. be evicted from the demised premises, he will suffer irreparable
injury and hardship as compared to the landlady.
·11. The prescribed authority, on assessment of the entire
·evidence on record, came toth.e:conclusion that the appellant-
tenant has failed to establish that the. landlady had let out some
D portions of the house to the ne\JV,fenants on higher rent. The
• prescribed authority sta.ted in its<order that the landlady has filed
on record PaperNo,28 in which residential address of the ap-
pellant-tenant is mentioned as 1A, Ghaoo Khera, and other
PaperNos.29., 30, 31 and 32 also reveal the same address of
E the appellant-tenant. On the basis of the oral as well as docu-
mentary evidence on record, the prescribed authority came to
the conclusion that the appellant-tenant is residing with his son
Vijay Juneja and his family members. The averments of the land-
... lady in her eviction application that the appellant-tenant has got
F House No.140-C Ramgali, Harjinder Nagar, 220, Patel Nagar,
1/382 N-2 Road, Harjinder Nagar, has been supported by Ashok
Kumar and Rakesh Kumar in their affidavits. On comparative
scrutiny of the statements pleaded by both the parties in their
pleadings and supported by their evidence, the prescribed au-
thority has noticed that in the Voter List Paper Nos. 45 and 46
G for the year 1995-99 name of Ajay Juneja; son of the appellant-
tenant, has not been shown as occupant of premises No.124A/
272, Block 11, Govind Nagar, as contended by the appellant-
tenant in his written statement and deposition in the affidavit. In
fact, Ajay Juneja at the relevant time, was residing at house No.
H
. DEEP CHANDRA JUNEJA v. SMT. LAJWANTI KATHURIA 695
(DEAD) THROUGH L.RS. [PANTA, J.]
251 ·and later on he shifted to premises No. 124A/272. The A
appellant-tenant, during the pendency of the eviction proceed-
ings; has not made any attempt to secure alternate accommo-
dation and he has been found living with other members of the
family in some other house and the prescribed authority as also
the Appellate ,A.uthority on scrutiny of th.e evidence have con- B.
·eluded that House No.124A/272 was owned by the father of the
appellant-tenant, which was transferred in the name of Ajay
Juneja, son of the appellant~tenant, by executing a collusive Will
with clear. intention .to show that the appellant-tenant does not
own any house in Kanpur City and in order to frustrate the. need. c
· of the landlady. Both the courts below recordedconcurrentfind-
ings ·Of facts that the appellant-tenant and his family members
have got separate accommodation in Kanpur City ahd on the
· .basis ofthe evidence on record, the requirement of the accom-
modation of the landlady is bona fide and genuine and the com"' .
0
parative hardship also is more pressing to the landlady in com-
parison to the appellant'.'tenant. In that view of the matter; the
High Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226. of the. Constitu-
tion has. rightly dismissed the writ petition .of the appellant-ten"'
ant on the premises of concurrenrtindjhgs offacts. ·
12. In the backdrop of thefadts~fi~cH~~uta61yjheJandlady. E
could file an application beforethe.presctibed·at.ith9rity'for the·
eviction of the appellant-tenant from ttie pr~aji$~s {JAder ten~
ancy or any specified portion thereof and the pr~scribed au'"
thority after satisfying itself that the ground as stipulated in Sec-• F ,
tion 21 of the Actdoesexist, fhe eviction orderhas been validly
passed against the appellant-tenant.
13. Rule 16 oftheU.P. UrbanBuildlngs(Regulation of
Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972, prescribes certain tac'.'
tors which have also to be taken into account by the prescribed G
authority .while considering the application for eviction of a ten-
'

ant on the ground of bona fide need. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 16
relates to the cases of eviction from an accommodatio11 for the
purpose of residence by the landlord o'r' any members of his
family. Considering the facts .in the light of Rule 16 pressed into H
696 SUPREfylE COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.
I

A service on behalf of the appellant-tenant that taking into cons id-
eration the length of the period of tenancy, the eviction of the
appellant-tenant from the premises in question is in violation of
the provision of Rule 16, in our opinion, cannot be accepted.
14. In Gaya Prasadv. Pradeep Srivastava [(2001) 2 SCC
B 604, this Court held that the need of the landlord is to be seen
on the date of application for release. In Prativa Devi v. TV
Krishnan [(1996) 5 SCC 353], it was held that the landlord is
the best judge of his requirement and courts have no concern to
dictate the landlord as to how and in what manner he should
c live. In Rishi Kumar Govil v. Maqsoodan & Ors. [(2007) 4 SCC
465], this Court while dealing with the pr~visions of Section
21 (1 )(a) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent
and Eviction) Act, 1972 and Rule 16 of the U. P. Urban Build-
ings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972, held
D that the bona fide personal need of the landlord is a question of ~
fact and should not be normally interfered with.
15. Having regard to the well-reasoned concurrent findings
and reasoning recorded by the prescribed authority and the Ap-
pellate Authority, which are affirmed by the High Court in writ pe-
E titian, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment warrants
n·o interference inasmuch as no illegality, infirmity or error of juris-
diction could be shown before us by the appellant-tenant.
In the result, for the above-stated reasons, we find no merit
F in this appeal and it is dismissed, accordingly. .(

However, considering the period for which the premises
in question was in the occupation of the appellant-tenant, time
is granted till 3~ .06.2009 to vacate the premises, subject to fil-
ing of an affidavit by way of usual undertaking before the pre-
G scribed authority within a period of four weeks to deliver the
vacant possession on or before the stipulated date. There will
be no order as to costs.

N.J. Appeal dismissed.

H