UP Urban Rent Regulation Act - Landlord Need Not Be Unemployed To Seek Eviction On The Ground Of Bonafide Need : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that a landlord is not required to be "unemployed" to seek eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.

All that the provision contemplates is that the requirement so pleaded by the landlord must be bona fide, the bench comprising Justices UU Lalit and S. Ravindra Bhat observed.

The landlord preferred an application seeking release of the premises in possession of the tenant claiming that the same is needed for starting a business for his son. The Prescribed Authority rejected the said application. The Appellate authority allowed appeal and ordered eviction of tenant. The tenant approached the High Court by filing petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court allowed the petition with a finding that the son of the landlord for whose benefit the release was sought was assessed to Income Tax and was having income of Rs.1,14,508 per annum and therefore was not an "unemployed" person. The High Court thus found that no case was made out to maintain an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act.

In appeal, the Apex Court bench referred to Section 21 and observed thus:

"It is quite clear that aforestated provision seeking release of the premises on the ground of bona fide requirement does not strictly require the landlord to be "unemployed" to maintain an action. All that the provision contemplates is that the requirement so pleaded by the landlord must be bona fide...The facts on record indicate that the appellant had suffered an accident and he genuinely wanted his son to be settled in business. It may be that the son of the appellant was having some income but that by itself would not disentitle him from claiming release of the premises on the ground of bona fide need. The need pleaded by the appellant was found to be genuine and was accepted by the appellate authority which is the final fact-finding authority."

Setting aside the High Court judgment, the bench restored the order passed by the Appellate Authority. The High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was not justified in upsetting the finding of fact rendered by the Appellant Authority, the bench added.

Case: Harish Kumar (D) vs Pankaj Kumar Garg | CA 253 OF 2022 | 7 Jan 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 239

Coram: Justices UU Lalit and S. Ravindra Bhat