Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition challenging the order dated 13-12-2022 passed by Rent Controller and also the order dated 24-04-2023 passed by District Judge rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of Rent Controller, Alok Mathur, J. has upheld the impugned orders of vacating the tenant from the premises. However, after considering the second proviso of Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (‘Act,1972’) and to meet the ends of justice, directed the respondent to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the petitioner as he has been in tenancy of the premises for over three decades.
Background:
The petitioner entered a tenancy in respect of a shop by way of oral agreement with the original landlord. The respondent had purchased the said property from the original landlord in 2013 and subsequently, the petitioner paid rent to the respondent. In 2020, the respondent filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of Act, 1972 on the ground that the said shop was required for the bonafide need of his son who is unemployed and wanted that shop for starting a business. The petitioner had appeared before the Rent controller and resisted the application for eviction. He stated that there was no bonafide need of the respondent or his son and it has not been stated as to what kind of business would be commenced in the disputed property. It is also stated that the respondent had several other vacant shops to start his independent business. Thus, the petitioner prayed for setting aside the application filed by the respondent under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act.
The Rent Controller, by an order dated 13-12-2022 allowed the application preferred by the respondent and directed the petitioner to vacate the shop in question within 30 days from the date of order. Further, the District Judge in appeal held that a case for eviction is made out and no infirmity was found in the findings recorded by the Rent Controller and consequently the appeal was dismissed. Thus, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
Analysis:
The Court, after taking note of the evidence, said that the son of the respondent is unemployed and to establish a furniture business, a large floor or area is required for which the disputed premises is required to establish the business. The petitioner could not establish that the son of the respondent is already employed and consequently there was no evidence on record to dispute the claim made by the respondent. Thus, no ground is made out for interference regarding the said issue.
The Court noted that the petitioner has contended that there was no bona fide need of the respondent or his son. Thus, before going into the question whether there was a bona fide need the Court examined the meaning of bona fide.
After referring to Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Mahesh Chand Gupta (Dr), (1999) 6 SCC 222, the Court said that the question of bona fides shall be satisfied if the landlord is able to show that they need the tenant’s premises for carrying out their business and the same does not need to be to the extent where no alternative is left to them.
Further, the Court said that in the present case, the respondent has been able to show the need accordingly and thus the contention of petitioner of no bona fide ground was rejected.
After relying on Harish Kumar v. Pankaj Kumar Garg1, the Court said that even if the son was employed, the same would not have made any difference. The respondent was able to make out a case for eviction on the ground that the premises were required for establishing the business of furniture for his unemployed son. The landlord has a right to determine as to how and in what manner he shall live, arranges his business etc. He has to settle his life in his own way. It cannot be guided, controlled or restricted by any third person, including the Court. A tenant or the Court cannot direct the landlord how and in what manner he should live/ arrange his affairs. There is no bar which can restrict a landlord from beneficial enjoyment of his own property.
The petitioner contended that it was mandatory for the prescribed authority to have considered the issue of comparative hardship, and it should have been considered that the petitioner had been running a business in the tenanted premises for nearly 37 years, and consequently no order of eviction could have been passed.
The Court said that the petitioner runs a very small business in the premises, and the said business can easily be shifted to any other place. On the other hand, the respondent was the landlord and his bonafide need for starting a business for his son was greater than the hardship which may be faced by the petitioner. Further, it viewed that the prescribed authority has duly considered this aspect, and no material was placed before this court which may indicate that the finding was perverse. Thus, there was no infirmity with the finding recorded by the prescribed Authority.
Further, it has been submitted by the petitioner that, only to test the claim of the landlord that the premises are required for bonafide purposes, the petitioner wanted to cross-examine the landlord and his witnesses.
The Court did not find any valid reason for interfering in the order of the prescribed authority rejecting the application for cross examination of the witnesses. The Court reiterated that cross-examination can be allowed only as an exception rather than the rule, as the proceedings before the prescribed authority are summary in nature. No satisfactory reason could be disclosed from which it could be gathered that cross-examination was necessary in the present case.
[Vijay Kumar Banswar v Awadesh Kumar Jaisawal, 2023 SCC OnLine All 2640, Order dated 23-11-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate Aakash Prasad, Advocate Amitav Singh, Advocate Himanshu Singh, Advocate Yash Joshi
Counsel for Respondent: Advocate Shishir Chandra, Advocate Vishnu Pratap Singh
1. Civil Appeal No.253 of 2022
