Holding

Explanation (i) to Section 21(1) is inapplicable to non‑residential buildings, so the landlord’s bona‑fide need and comparative hardship must be examined, but the appellate findings were upheld.

Summary

The respondent, a landlord, filed an eviction petition under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, seeking to recover a non‑residential shop for her husband's motor‑parts business. The appellant, the tenant, contended that he owned other shops and could shift without hardship, and argued that the High Court erred by relying on Explanation (i) to the section, which he claimed applies only to residential premises. The Supreme Court held that Explanation (i) is limited to residential buildings and therefore does not bar examination of the landlord's bona‑fide need or the comparative hardship in a non‑residential eviction. However, the Court observed that the Prescribed Authority and Appellate Authority had correctly found the landlord’s bona‑fide requirement and that the tenant would not suffer hardship, findings that were affirmed by the High Court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, with the tenant granted time to vacate the shop by 31 May 2008 upon furnishing the usual undertaking.

Issues considered

Whether Explanation (i) to Section 21(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Act, 1972, applies to eviction proceedings concerning a non‑residential building.
Whether the landlord must prove a bona‑fide requirement and the court must consider comparative hardship when the building is non‑residential.

Legislation cited

Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972s. 21(1)(a)

Subjects

evictionnon‑residential buildingbona fide requirementcomparative hardshipExplanation clauseUttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Actlandlord‑tenant

Judgment

[2008] 2 S.C.R. 566

A SHIV SINGH CHAK -'· "
II.
BABY JAIN
(Civil Appeal No.1386 of 2008)
FEBRUARY 7, 2008
B
(K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI, R.V. RAVEENDRAN
AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.)

Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Letting, Rent and
c Eviction) Act, 1972:
S. 21 (1 )(a) Explanation (i) - Non-residential building -
Petition for eviction of tenant - On ground of bona fide
requirement-Held: Since Explanation(i) to clause (a) of s.2(1)
is inappiicable to a non-residential building, bar contained in
D clause (i) of the Explanation will not operate where eviction
petition is in regard to a non-residential building - But the fact
that tenant has acquired a suitable alternative non-residential
building may be urged as a good ground to show that no
hardship will be caused to tenant if he is evicted from the
E premises - On facts, High Court committed an error in
observing that Explanation (i) makes it unnecessary to
examine bona tides of landlord and the issue of comparative
hardship - However, High Court rightly affirmed the concurrent
findings of fact recorded by Prescribed Authority and Appellate
F Authority that landlord bona fide required the shop and tenant,
because of availability of suitable. shop, would not be put to
any hardship - Tenant granted time to vacate the shop subject
to filing usual undertaking.
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1386
G of 2008.
~··
From the final Judgment and Order dated 28/10/2006 of
the High Court of Judicature atAllahabadin CMWP No. 19764/
2006.

H 566
~\

-I SHIV SINGH CHAK v. BABY JAIN 567
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
; ~" J.C. Gupta, Rajesh and Anurag Tomar for the Appellant. A
R. Mishra (for Mr. M.A. Chinnasamy) forthe Respondent.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI. Leave granted. Heard
B
learned counsel.
2. The respondent is the· landlord and appellant is the
'> tenant in regard to the petition schedule shop ('shop' for short)
situated at Tundla, District Firozabad. The respondent filed an
eviction petition before the Prescribed Authority, alleging that c
she had let out the shop when she and her family was living at
Etah, that her family had subsequently shifted to Tundla and that
she required the shop for her husband to carry on his business
in motor parts. She further alleged that the appellant owned and
possessed several shops near to the schedule shop, but had
D
llr
not vacated the shop belonging to her, and that he will not be
put to any hardship if he is evicted as he could conveniently shift
... and occupy his own shop .
3. The appellant herein resisted the said petition. After
considering the evidence, the Prescribed Authority, by judgment E.
dated 14.3.2002, allowed the eviction petition under section
21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of
Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 ('Act' for short). The appeal
filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Appellate authority
... by judgment dated 13.1.2006. The writ petition filed by the F
appellant before the High Court of Allahabad, challenging the
order of the Appellate Authority was also dismissed by the order
under appeal dated 28.10.2006.
4. We find that the concurrent findings of the Prescribed
Authority and Appellate Authority in favour of the landlord- G
"\ respondent, on the question of bona fide need and comparative
hardship, have been rightly affirmed by the High Court and no
ground is made out to interfere with the said findings of fact.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted
H
568 SUPREME. COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

·~"'1
A that the judgment of the High Court suffers from a serious legal
infirmity as it wrongly placed reliance upon Explanation (i) in
section 21 (1) of the Act to hold that it was not necessary for the
landlord to prove that her need was bona fide or comparative
greater hardship. According to him, explanation (i) applies
B only to residential buildings and not to non-residential
buildings and the High Court could not have relied upon the
said provision. ~-
...
6. For convenience, we may extract the relevant portion of
section 21 of the Act as follows :
c
"21. Proceedings for release of building under occupation
of tenant. - (1) The prescribed authority may, on an
application of the landlord in that behalf, order the eviction
of a tenant from the building under tenancy or any specified
part thereof if it is satisfied that any of the following grounds
D
exists, namely, - ~
1.

(a) that the building is bona fide required either in its ;>.
existing form or after.demolition and new construction
by the landlord for occupation by himself or any
E member of his family, or any person for whose benefit
it is held by him, either for residential purposes or for
purposes of any profession, trade or calling, or wnere
the landlord is the trustee of a public charitable trust,
for the objects of the trust;
...-
F xxx >

Provided also that the prescribed authority shall,
except in cases provided for in the Explanation, take
into account the likely hardship to the tenant from the
grant of the application as against the likely hardshJP
G
to the landlord from the refusal of the application an.d
for that purpose shall have regard to such factors as
may be prescribed.
Explanation.- In the case of a residential building:-
H
SHIV SINGH CHAK v. BABY JAIN 569
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.]
... "·-+-
.
(i) Where the tenant or any member of his family A
(who has been normally residing with or is wholly
dependant on him) has built or has otherwise
acquired in a vacant state or has got vacated after
acquisition a residential building in the same city,
municipality, notified area or town area, no objection B
by the tenant against an application under this sub-
section shall be entertained;
xxxxx
Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 21 enables the c
Prescribed Authority to pass an order of eviction on an
application by the landlord if it is satisfied that the building is
bona fide required by the landlord for occupation for himself or
any member of his family. The fourth and last proviso to sub-
section (1) provides that except in the cases provided for in the
0
.explanation, the Prescribed Authority shall take into account the
likely hardship to the tenant from the grant of the application as
against the likely hardship to the landlord from the refusal of the
application. Explanation (i) to section 21 ( 1) of the Act provides
that where a proceeding for eviction is initiated by the landlord E
in regard to a residential building under section 21 (1) of the Act
and where the tenant or any member of his family has acquired
a vacant residential building in the same city/town/area, the
prescribed Authority shall not entertain any objection of the tenant
against the application for eviction. In effect this means that
where the landlord avers and proves in an eviction proceedings F
.relating to a residential building under section 21 (1) of the Act,
that the tenant has acquired vacant possession of a residential
building in the same city/town/area, it will not be permissible for
the tenant to challenge the bonafides of the landlord or put forth
any hardship as a defence. But the said explanation (i) to section G
21 (1) does not apply to non-residential buildings. The
Explanation to section 21(1) starts with the words "In the case
of a residential building". As the Explanation is inapplicable to
a non-residential building, the bar contained in clause (i) of the
Explanation will not operate where the eviction petition is in H
'~

570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 2 S.C.R.

-f.·" .v
A regard to a non-residential building. But the fact that the tenant
has acquired a suitable alternative non-residential building may,
however, be urged as a good ground to hold that no hardship
will be caused to the tenant if he is evicted from the premises
let out to him.
B 6. The High Court has thus committed an error in observing
the Explanation (i) makes it unnecessary to examine the -t-~
bonafides of the landlord and the issue of comparative hardship .!.

in this case. We are however, of the view that this error on the
part of the High Court does not necessitate interference with
c the ultimate decision of the High Court nor calls for a remand as
contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. We have
already noticed that the Prescribed Authority and Appellate
Authority have recorded clear concurrent findings of fact that
the landlord bona fide requires the shop and that the appellant
D will not be put to any hardship in view of availability of suitable
shop. These findings have been considered and affirmed by --'·
the High Court while dismissing the writ petition. ,.
7. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal as having no merit, I-
subject to the clarification about the applicability of Explanation
E (i) of Section 21 (1) of the Act. However, the appellant is granted
time till 31st May, 2008 to vacate the shop in question subject to
his filing the usual undertaking before this Court within a period
of four weeks from today and continuing to pay the agreed rent
till 31st May, 2008.
F >- '
R.P. Appeal dismissed.