SMT. SHANTI DEVI AND ANR.versusSWAMI ASHANAND & ANR.

A                     SMT. SHANTI DEVI AND ANR.
                                         v.
                        SWAMI ASHANAND & ANR.

                             DECEMBER 20, 2002

B               [R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.]


         Rent Control and Eviction:

          UP. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act,
C   1972-Section 21(/)(a)-Eviction-Sought by a sanyasi-On the ground of
    reconstruction of building wher~in he would perform religious activities
    including propagation of religion-Held, purpose for which premises is sought
    is within purview of the provision-Hence tenanted premises liable to be
    vacated
D         Suit premises was sought to be vacated by respondent No. I-landlord
    who was a Sanyasi, from the four tenants including the. predecessor of
    appellant-tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement for reconstruction
    after demolition of the building u/s 2l(l)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings
    (Regulation of Letting, Rent a_nd Eviction) Act, 1972. Eviction was sought
E   for the purpose of constructing a residence alongwith a temple and a
    satsang hall, where, he would be delivering sermons. Eviction was allowed
    by the trial Court, appellate authority as well as High Court. Three of
    the four tenants vacated the premises.

           Appellants, widow and one of the sons of the fourth tenant, in appeal
F   to this Court contended that the purpose for which the premises are sought
    to be got vacated does not fall within the purview of Section 21(1)(a) of
    the Act.

          Dismissing the appeal, the Court

G         HELD: I.I. It cannot be said that the purpose for which the premises
    are sought to be got vacated does not fall within the purview of Section
    2l(l)(a) of the U.P. Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
    Act, 1972. Clause (a) of sub-section (I) of Section 21 is very widely worded.
    Demolition and reconstruction for occupation by landlord himself either

H                                       694
            SHANTI DEVI v. SW AMI ASHANAND [R.C. LAHOTI, J.]               695
" for residential purpose or for purposes of any p·rofession, trade or calling    A
  is permissible. The words 'profession, trade or calling' are very wide and
  include therein all activities wherein a person may usefully and/or gainfully
  engage himself. (696-H; 697-A-BI

        1.2. In the instant case, it cannot be doubted that the respondent-
  landlord is a sanyasi and his calling is performance of religious activities    B
  including pr_opagation of religion by delivering sermons and attracting
  devotees. Though the respondent does not appear to be carrying on such
  activities like a commercial activity, the fact remains that the respondent
  depends on such activities also to cater to his livelihood therefrom. The
  premises vacated by other tenants have not been re-let or made any misuse       C
  of. The major part of the building stands already vacated and it is a very
  small portion of the building which continues to be in possession of the
  appellants and unless they vacate, the proposed reconstruction cannot be
  carried out. (697-8-C(

        CIVIL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 633 of 2002.            0
       From the Judgment and Order dated 13.7.2000 of the Allahabad High
  Court in CMWP No. 24833 of 1998.

       Sushendra Kumar Chauhan, Ms. Rashm Jan for R.P. Gupta for the
  Appellants.                                                                     E
       Anuvrat Sharma, Alok Singh for Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta for the
  Respondents.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                                  F
        R.C. LAHOTI, J. The suit premises is part of a building situated in the
  pilgrimage city of Haridwar. The building was in occupation of four sets of
  tenants occupying different portions. Swami Ashanand, the respondent No. I,
  who is admittedly the landlord-owner, initiated proceedings for eviction against
  all the tenants on the· ground available under Section 21(I)(a) of the U.P.
  Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The G
  eviction was ordered against all the tenants. Three tenants have given up the
  possession over the premises in their occupation to the landlord-respondent.
  One of the tenants, namely Sheet Chandra, who has also expired during the
  pendency of these proceedings arid whose widow and two sons are respectively
  the two appellants and proforma respondent No. 3 are pursuing the H
    696                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A   proceedings. The appellate authority has dismissed their appeal and the High
    Court too has dismissed their writ petition. This appeal is by special leave.

          The case pleaded by the respondent No. I and which has been found
    proved by all the three Courts is that he is a sanyasi. His object in life is to
    preach religion and perform religious rites. He used to roam at different
B   places. Of late, his health has gone fragile and, therefore, he proposes to stay
    permanently at Haridwar and live in the premises in question. The building
    is proposed to be materially altered by reconstructing so as to construct,
    along with residence, a temple wherein idol of Lord Krishnaji and Lord
    Shivaji Maharaj, whom the respondent worships, shall be seated. There would
C   be a satsang hall where the respondent No. I would be delivering sermons.
    There would be a puja room and a store room and a shringar room for the
    use of the deity. The guests coming from outside would stay in the newly
    constructed premises. Incidentally, he would also earn his livelihood from
    the offerings received from devotees.

D          During the pc;ndency of the appeal, the respondent has also created a
    religious trust though the deed of trust does not speak of the suit premises as
    having been vested in the trust. The trust deed merely reaffirms the
    respondent's resolution for religious activities as proposed.

          Section 21(1 )(a) provides as under:-
E
            "21. Proceedings for release of building under occupation of
            tenant-(!) 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 exists namely
F
                (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 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
G               where the landlord is the trustee of a public charitable trust, for ·
                the objects of the trust;"
                xxx              xxx              xxx           xxx

          The singular submission of the learned coun~el for the tenant-appellants
H has been that the purpose for which the premises are sought to be got vacated         \.
         SHANTI DEVI v. SWAMI ASHANAND [R.C. LAHOTI, J.]                    697

does not fall within the purview of the abovesaid provision. We do not agree.       A
Clause (a) abovesaid is very widely worded. Demolition and reconstruction
for occupation by landlord himself either for residential purpose or for purposes
of any profession, trade or calling is permissible. The words 'profession,
trade or calling are very wide and include therein all activities wherein a
person may usefully and/or gainfully engage himself. It cannot be doubted
that the respondent-landlord is a sanyasi and his calling is performance of         B
religious activities including propagation of religion by delivering sermons
and attracting devotees. Though the respondent does not appear to be carrying
on such activities like a commercial activity, the fact remains that the
respondent depends on such activities also to cater to his livelihood therefrom.
The premises vacated by other tenants have not been re-let or made any              C
misuse of. The major part of the building stands already vacated and it is a
very small portion of the building which continues to be in possession of the
appellants and unless they vacate, the proposed reconstruction cannot be
carried out.

      We do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of the· High            D
Court upholding the respondent-landlord's entitlement to eviction of the tenant.

      The appeal is dismissed. However, the appellants are allowed four
months time from today for.vacating the suit premises and delivering peaceful
vacant possession to the respondent-landlord subject to filing usual undertaking
within a period of three weeks from today.                                          E
K.K.T.                                                       Appeal dismissed.