Holding

The Appellate Authority rightly ordered eviction as the notice requirement was complied with and the landlord’s bona‑fide requirement and greater hardship were established.

Summary

The landlord, Munni Devi, sought eviction of the tenants, Manoj Kumar and others, under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, claiming the building was dilapidated and needed demolition for a new business and for her son’s employment. The Prescribed Authority dismissed the application, but the Appellate Authority allowed it, holding that a six‑month notice had been given, the landlord’s requirement was bona‑fide, and she would suffer greater hardship than the tenants, who occupied other vacant shops. The tenants challenged the order in the Allahabad High Court, which dismissed their writ petition. On appeal before this Court, the tenants argued that the notice requirement was not complied with and that the landlord had no genuine need. The Supreme Court, noting the Appellate Authority’s clear findings and the evidence of notice, declined to revisit the legal issue and upheld the eviction order. The appeal was dismissed with costs and the tenants were directed to vacate.

Issues considered

Whether the first proviso to Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act, requiring a six‑month notice before filing a release application, was complied with
Whether the landlord’s claim of a bona‑fide requirement for the premises is genuine
Whether the comparative hardship test favours the landlord over the tenants
Whether the appellate authority’s findings can be interfered with by a higher court

Legislation cited

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

Subjects

rent controlevictionbona fide requirementnotice periodlandlord-tenantU.P. Urban Buildings Actcomparative hardshipspecial leave petition

Judgment

S.--
MANOJ KUMAR AND ANR. A
v.
MUNN! DEVI

APRIL 28, 2005

[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., G.P. MATHUR AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] B

Rent Control and Eviction :

UP. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act,
1972-Section 21(/)(a) and first proviso thereto-Eviction-On the ground of c
bonafide requirement-Denied by Prescribed Authority-Granted by Appellate
Authority on finding that need of the landlord was bonafide and that
comparative hardship of the landlord was greater and first proviso to the
Section was complied with-Order of Appellate Authority not interfered with
by High Court-On appeal, held: Appellate Authority rightly ordered eviction. D

Respondent-landlord filed application u/s. 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban
Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 against the
appellant-tenants, on the grounds that the building was in dilapidated
condition and was required for demolition and new construction wherein
after the new construction, her husband would carry on business; and that E
she had bonafide requirement for establishing business of one of her sons
as he was unemployed. Prescribed Authority dismissed the release
application. The appeal was allowed by appellate Authority holding that
requirement of first proviso to Section 21(1) of the Act had been complied
with and that the need of the landlord was bonafide and landlord would
suffer greater hardship as compared to the tenants. Writ Petition filed by F
the tenant was dismissed by High Court.

In appeal to this Court appellant contended that the release
application was not maintainable as first proviso to Section 2t(t)(a) of the
Act was not complied with and that the landlord had no bonafide
G
requirement of the property and the tenants would suffer greater hardship
in the event the shop in question were released.
-..
Dismissing the appeal, the Court

959 H
,......
960 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R.

A HELD : The Appellate Authority has recorded a clear finding that
the need of the landlord was bona fide and genuine and further that the
landlord will suffer greater hardship in the event of rejection of the release
application than that which will be suffered by the tenants in the event of
grant of the application as they had several other vacant shops in their
B occupation. The Appellate Authority has also recorded a finding that the
requirement of first proviso to Section 21(1) of U.P. Urban Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 had been complied
with as a notice was given before filing of1he release application. The High
Court, therefore, rightly declined to interfere with the order passed by
-
the Appellate Authority while exercising jurisdi'"tion under Article 226 of
C the Constitution. (962-H; 963-8)

Martin and Harris Ltd v. Vth Addi. District Judge, (1998) 1 SCC 732
and Anwar Hasan Khan v. Mohd Shafi and Ors., (2001) 8 SCC 540, referred
to.

D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2919 of2005.

From the Judgment and Order dated 26. 7.2002 of the Allahabad High
Court in C.M. W.P. No. 31196 of 1996.

Siddharth Bhatnagar, Anurag Sharma and Prashant Kumar for the
E Appellants.

E.C. Aga~~la; Mahesh Agarwal and Rishi Agrawal for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

F G.P. MATHUR, J. l. Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave has been preferred against the judgment
and order dated 26. 7.2002 of Allahabad High Court by which the writ petition
preferred by the appellants was dismissed.

G 3. Jawahar Lal, the father of the· appellants was a tenant of a shop
bearing No. 29/17, Namak Ki Mandi, Agra and it was purchased by the
respondent Smt. Munni Devi on 23.01.1976. After the death of Jawahar Lal,
the appellants being his sons inherited the tenancy and started paying rent to -
the respondent. The respondent filed an application in the year 1987 seeking
release of the shop on two grounds, namely, that the building was in a
H dilapidated condition and is required for the purpose of demolition and new
MANOJ KUMAR v. MUNNI DEVI [ G.P. MATHUR, J.) 961
construction wherein her husband will carry on the business after new A
construction had been made. The second ground pleaded was that one of her
sons was unemployed and was sitting idle and he would also establish his
business in the shop. The appellants contested the release application on
various grounds. The Prescribed Authority dismissed the release application
by the judgment and order dated 15.04.1989. The respondent then preferred
an appeal which was allowed by the Vllth Addi. & District Judge, Agra, by B.
the judgment and order dated 13.9.1996 and the shop was released in favour
of the respondent and she was directed to pay rent of one year as compensation
to the appellants. The appellants challenged the aforesaid judgment by filing
a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court which was dismissed on
26.07.2002. c
4. Shri Siddartha Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellants, has
submitted that the landlord had applied for release of the shop under the
tenancy of the appellants under Section 21(l)(a) of UP Urban Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to
as the Act) and the first proviso to said sub-section requires giving of notice D
by the landlord to the tenant not less than six months before filing of such
application and as in the present case no such notice had been given, the
release application was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed on
this ground alone. Learned Counsel has submitted that the aforesaid provision
has come up for consideration before this Court in Martin & Harris Ltd v. E
Vth Addi. District Judge, [ 1998] 1 SCC 732 wherein it was held that the
requirement of giving prior notice was mandatory. Challenge has also been
raised to the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority in favour of the
landlord and it has been urged that she had no bona fide requirement of the
property and further the appellants would suffer greater hardship in the event
of release of the shop in which they were carrying on business for a long F
time.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that six months'
notice had in fact been given in the present case before filing the release
application. I-le has also submitted that the provision of giving six months'
notice before filing the release application is not mandatory and, therefore, G
the release application cannot be held to be not maintainable even if no such
notice is given by the landlord. In support of this submission, learned cou!lsel
has placed reliance on a later decision of this Court in Anwar Hasan Khan
v. Mohd. Shafi and Ors., [2001} 8 SCC 540 wherein it was held that the
period contemplated for not initiating the eviction proceedings against a tenant H
I •

--,
962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R.

A on the grounds specified in Clause (a) of sub-section (I) of Section 21 was
three years and in no case more than three years and six months and any
proceeding initiated for release of the building on the aforesaid ground after
the expiry of the period does not require the service of six months prior
notice. Learned counsel has further submitted that after a thorough ex_amination
B of the evidence on record the Appellate Authority had recorded clear findings
that the need of the landlord was bona fide and genuine and further that in
the event the shop was not released the landlord would suffer greater hardship.
It has thus been submitted that the Judgment of the Appellate Authority is
perfectly sound and the writ petition filed by the appellants was rightly
dismissed by the High Court and as such there is absolutely no occasion for
C this court to interfere in a Special Leave Petition filed under Article 136 of
the Constitution.

6. The judgment of the ·Appellate Authority shows that the respondent
(landlord) moved an application for adducing additional evidence in appeal,
which was allowed on 9 .4.1993. The respondent filed the copy of the notice
D dated 17 .2.1983 sent by Shri Jethanand, Advocate on her behalf and also the
copy of the reply dated 8.3 .1983 sent by Shri Ram Chander Bhakru, Advocate.
The. aforesaid documents were proved by Shri Rakesh Kumar Bansal, clerk
of Shri Jethananad, Advocate. The respondent also filed affidavit of Shri Brij
Mohan. Thereafter, the tenant summoned Bangali Mal (husband of respondent, -~.

E Smt. Munni Devi), Brij Mohan and Rakesh Kumar Bansal and they were
cross-examined. The Appellate Authority, after considering the aforesaid
evidence, has recorded a dear finding that a notice was sent by the landlord
before filing the release application and the requirement of first proviso to
Section 21(l)(a) of the Act had been complied with. The filing of the additional
evidence_ before the Appellate Authority finds mention in the Writ Petition
F which was filed by the appellants in the High Court.

7. In view ofthe findings recorded by the Appellate Authority and also
by the High Court that a notice, as contemplated by the first proviso to
Section 2l(l)(a) of the Act, had been sent by the landlord we do not consider
it necessary to decide the legal issue raised by the learned counsel for the
G appellants and the same may be done in a more appropriate case.

8. The Appellate Authority has recorded a clear finding that the need
of the landlord was bona fide and genuine and further that the landlord will
suffer greater hardship .in the event of rejection of the release application than
H that which will be suffered by the tenants in the event of grant of the application
MANOJ KUMAR v. MUNNI DEVI [ G.P. MATHUR, .I.] 963

as they had several other vacant shops in their occupation. The Appellate A
Authority has also recorded a finding that the requirement of first proviso to
sub-Section (I) of Section 21 of the Act had been comp Iied with as a notice
was given before filing of the release application. The High Court, therefore,
rightly declined to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Authority
while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
I
B
9. There is no merit in the present appeal which is hereby dismissed
with costs.

10. The appellants are granted time till 31.07.2005 to vacate the building
subject to their filing the usual undertaking within one month.
(
C,
K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.

-