G.C.KAPOOR versus NAND KUMAR BHASIN AND ORS.

G.C.KAPOOR versus NAND KUMAR BHASIN AND ORS.

The landlord satisfied the requirements of Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 and Rule 16(2)(d), as his son has completed technical education, is not in government service, and intends self-employment. Financial capacity to launch the business is irrelevant. The tenant has alternative premises and would not experience greater hardship than the landlord if eviction is granted. The decisions of the courts below are set aside and eviction is decreed.

Parties
Appellant Landlord: G.C. Kapoor; Respondents Tenants: Nand Kumar Bhasin and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From Allahabad High Court Judgment Dated 12.1.98 Dismissing Writ Petition No.02(rc)/1998
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Decree for eviction granted.
Legal Topics
Eviction of Tenant, Bonafide Requirement, Technical Education of Landlord's Son, Financial Capacity of Landlord, Rule 16(2)(d) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972
Rent Control and Eviction Eviction of Tenant Bonafide Requirement Technical Education of Landlord's Son Financial Capacity of Landlord Rule 16(2)(d) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G.C. Kapoor

Appellant Landlord

Nand Kumar Bhasin and Ors.

Respondents Tenants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave From Allahabad High Court Judgment Dated 12.1.98 Dismissing Writ Petition No.02(rc)/1998

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the landlord's requirement for eviction under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, for his son's business is bonafide
  2. 2 Whether the courts below erred in considering the landlord's financial capacity as relevant for eviction under the Act
  3. 3 Whether the technical qualification of the landlord's son satisfies Rule 16(2)(d) for the grant of eviction

Ratio Decidendi

The landlord satisfied the requirements of Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 and Rule 16(2)(d), as his son has completed technical education, is not in government service, and intends self-employment. Financial capacity to launch the business is irrelevant. The tenant has alternative premises and would not experience greater hardship than the landlord if eviction is granted. The decisions of the courts below are set aside and eviction is decreed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Decree for eviction granted.

Orders

  • Impugned judgments of the courts below are set aside.
  • Eviction petition filed by the appellant is allowed and decree for eviction is granted.