SUSHILA versus IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BANDA AND ORS.

SUSHILA versus IIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BANDA AND ORS.

Even though the tenant has a long period of tenancy, the availability of another shop to the tenant neutralizes this as a ground against eviction. The landlady has no alternative accommodation to settle her married and unemployed son. The need of the landlady is bona fide. Comparative hardship favors the landlady, so the eviction order should be restored.

Parties
Appellant Landlady: Sushila; Respondents: IInd Additional District Judge, Banda and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
17 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal No. 5124 of 1998 / Supreme Court Appeal From Allahabad High Court Judgment and Order Dated 30.4.1997 in C.m.w.p. No. 1472 of 1985
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Orders of the High Court and Appellate Court set aside. Order of eviction by Prescribed Authority restored.
Legal Topics
Eviction, Bonafide Requirement, Comparative Hardship
Rent Control Property Law Eviction Bonafide Requirement Comparative Hardship

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sushila

Appellant Landlady

IInd Additional District Judge, Banda and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal No. 5124 of 1998 / Supreme Court Appeal From Allahabad High Court Judgment and Order Dated 30.4.1997 in C.m.w.p. No. 1472 of 1985

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the landlady's requirement for eviction is bona fide under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.
  2. 2 Whether comparative hardship under Rule 16(2) of the 1972 Rules justifies eviction in favor of the landlady.

Ratio Decidendi

Even though the tenant has a long period of tenancy, the availability of another shop to the tenant neutralizes this as a ground against eviction. The landlady has no alternative accommodation to settle her married and unemployed son. The need of the landlady is bona fide. Comparative hardship favors the landlady, so the eviction order should be restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Orders of the High Court and Appellate Court set aside. Order of eviction by Prescribed Authority restored.

Orders

  • Tenant is to vacate premises and hand over vacant possession to the landlady within four months, contingent on clearing arrears of rent, continuing regular payment, and furnishing usual undertaking within four weeks from the date of this order.
  • Costs awarded throughout in favor of the appellant.