GULSHERA KHANAM versus AFTAB AHMAD

GULSHERA KHANAM versus AFTAB AHMAD

A married daughter who is a co-owner and has a legal right of residence in the premises falls within the definition of 'family' under Section 3(g) of the Act, and the landlord is entitled to seek eviction for her bona fide need. High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 227 by reappreciating facts and reversing concurrent findings without showing perversity or legal error.

Parties
Appellant (landlady): Gulshera Khanam; Respondent (tenant): Aftab Ahmad
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Allowing Tenant's Writ Petition, After Concurrent Findings From Prescribed Authority and District Judge in Appellant's Favour
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; Orders of Prescribed Authority and Additional District Judge restored.
Legal Topics
Eviction for Bona Fide Need, Definition of 'family' Under Rent Laws, High Court Revisional/writ Powers Under Article 227, Inheritance Under Muslim Law
Rent Control Property Law Constitutional Law Eviction for Bona Fide Need Definition of 'family' Under Rent Laws High Court Revisional/writ Powers Under Article 227 Inheritance Under Muslim Law

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gulshera Khanam

Appellant (landlady)

Aftab Ahmad

Respondent (tenant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Allowing Tenant's Writ Petition, After Concurrent Findings From Prescribed Authority and District Judge in Appellant's Favour

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a married daughter falls under the definition of 'family' under Section 3(g) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972
  2. 2 Whether landlord can seek eviction for the bona fide need of a married daughter who is a co-owner
  3. 3 Whether High Court was justified in reversing concurrent findings of fact in writ jurisdiction under Article 227

Ratio Decidendi

A married daughter who is a co-owner and has a legal right of residence in the premises falls within the definition of 'family' under Section 3(g) of the Act, and the landlord is entitled to seek eviction for her bona fide need. High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 227 by reappreciating facts and reversing concurrent findings without showing perversity or legal error.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; Orders of Prescribed Authority and Additional District Judge restored.

Orders

  • Respondent to vacate the suit shop within 3 months, subject to furnishing an undertaking to the Court.
  • Respondent to deposit all arrears of rent, three months' advance rent as damages, and costs awarded by the Court.