RISHI KUMAR GOVIL v. MAQSOODAN AND ORS

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 483

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

Case summary

RISHI KUMAR GOVIL v. MAQSOODAN AND ORS.pdf

Judgment text

RISHI KUMAR GOVIL v. MAQSOODAN AND ORS. MARCH 28, 2007 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ. ] Rent Control and Eviction: Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation ofLetting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972; Ss.

16 and 21(/)(a): Eviction-Shop in occupation of tenant-Landlady filing refoase application for vacating the shop on ground that it was required for her son to start fire arms repairing business-Allowed by prescribed authority- Ajjirmed by appellate Authority-Challenge to-High Court remanding the matter to the appellate authority-Order ofthe prescribed authority affirmed by the appellate authority-Challenged by the tenant-Dismissed by High " Court-On appeal, Held: Bonafide need ofthe landlord is a question offact and should not normally be interfered with-In the instant case, more than 20 years has elapsed since filing of release application by the landlady to settle his son in business-Licence for repairing fire arms could be obtuined where vacant shop available-Under the circumstances, the prescribed authority, appellate authority and the High Court rightly came to the conclusion that the need of the landlady is bonafide and genuine-Hence there is no scope for any interference.

Father ofthe appellant was tenant ofthe disputed premises in question, a shop. Respondent No. I-landlady purchased the said shop on 11. 12. 1979 from the erstwhile landlord. She moved release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 on the ground of bonafide need of her son. In the release application, the landlady prayed that the shop was urgently required as her husband intended to start business of repairing fire arms in the disputed shop for her son. The prescribed authority vide judgment and order dated 08. 05. 1986 allowed the release application and directed for eviction of the tenant. However, in appeal, the order was upset by the appellate authority. The landlady challenged the order of appellate authority before the High 483 II -+ Court.

The High Court remanded the case to the appellate authority with the ~ observation that the appellate authority shall decide the appeal afresh on merits after taking into consideration the subsequent material events. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant-tenant died and was substituted by the legal heirs. On remand, the appellate authority affirmed the order of the prescribed authority holding that the landlady herself had offered a shop to the tenant in the alternative, but he refused to t~ke possession of the same. Aggrieved, the appellant-son of the tenant filed a writ petition which was dismissed by the High. Hence the present appeal. ,_ ..... , Appellant-tenant contended that in terms of s. 16 of the Act, so far as the commercial premises are concerned the parameters have to be different.

Respondent-landlady submitted that the premises was required for starting the business of repairing of guns for her son; and that her need is more hard pressing in comparison to the appellant-tenant. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. 1. The bona fide personal need is a question offact and normally should not be interfered with. The High Court noted that when the Prescribed "'. ,_ Authority passed the order, son of the respondent-landlady was 20 years old and the shop was sought to be released for the purpose of settling him in ~ business. More than 20 years have elapsed and the son has become more than 40 years of age but she has not been able to establish him as she has still to get the possession of the shop and the litigation of the dispute is still subsisting. (Para 19) [491-E-G] 1. 2. The licence for repairing fire arms can only be obtained when there is a vacant shop available and in the absence ofany vacant shop, licence cannot )... be obtained by an applicant.

Therefore, the High Court came to the conclusion -{ concurring with that of the Prescribed Authority and Appellate Authority that the need of the landlady is bona fide and genuine. Considering the factual findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority, Appellate Authority and analysed by the High Court, there is no scope for any interference in this appeal. However, considering the period for which the premises in question are in the occupation of the appellant, time is granted till 31st December, ".. 2007 to vacate the premises subject to filing of an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority within a period of 2 weeks to deliver the vacant 'v-, possession on or before the stipulated date. [Para 19] (491-G-H; 492-A-B} RISHI KUMARGOVIL v. MAQSOODAN [PASAYAT, J. ] 485 Sushi/a v. Ilnd Addi. District Judge, Banda and Ors. , (2003) 2 SC 28; Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinary and Co. , AIR (2000) SC 534; Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Shrivastava, AIR (2001) SC 803 and Prativa Devi (Smt. ) v.

T. V. Krishnan, [1996) 5 SCC 353, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1601 of2007. From the Final Judgment and Order dated OI. 09. 2006 of the High Court of Judicature of Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16447 of2001. _, t Ashok Mathur for the Appellant. R. P. Singh, Vipin K. Saxena, Jyoti Saxena and Dr. Kailash Chand for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the and the shop was sought to be released for the purpose of settling him in business. More than 20 years have elapsed and the son has become more than 40 years of age and she has not been able to establish him as she has still to get the possession of the shop and the litigation of the dispute is still subsisting.

The licence for repairing fire arms can only be obtained when there is a vacant shop available and in the absence of any vacant shop, . ' licence cannot be obtained by him. Therefore, the High Court came to the ' conclusion concurring with that of the Prescribed Authority and Appellate i Authority that the need of the landlady is bona fide and genuine. Considering the factual findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority, Appellate Authority A and analysed by the High Court, there is no scope for any interference in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. However, considering the period for which the premises in question are in the occupation of the appellant time is granted till 31st December, 2007 to vacate the premises subject to filing ofan undertaking before the Prescribed Authority within a period of 2 weeks to B deliver the vacant possession on or before the stipulated date. There will be no order as to costs. S. K. S. Appeal dismissed. _,. __