MOHD. AYUB & ANR. versus MUKESH CHAND

MOHD. AYUB & ANR. versus MUKESH CHAND

The landlord's bonafide need for the premises outweighs the hardship to the tenant, and the courts below erred in relying solely on the landlord's financial position and in not properly considering comparative hardship. The landlord is entitled to possession and the tenant must vacate, with time allowed for relocation.

Parties
Appellant: Mohd. Ayub & Anr.; Respondent: Mukesh Chand
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment (partially Allowed Writ Petition)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Eviction, Bonafide Requirement, Comparative Hardship, Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972
Tenancy Rent Control Eviction Bonafide Requirement Comparative Hardship Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohd. Ayub & Anr.

Appellant

Mukesh Chand

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment (partially Allowed Writ Petition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the landlord's requirement for eviction is bonafide under s.21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972
  2. 2 Whether the aspect of comparative hardship between landlord and tenant was properly considered

Ratio Decidendi

The landlord's bonafide need for the premises outweighs the hardship to the tenant, and the courts below erred in relying solely on the landlord's financial position and in not properly considering comparative hardship. The landlord is entitled to possession and the tenant must vacate, with time allowed for relocation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned order set aside to the extent it permits respondent to retain possession of three rooms.
  • Respondent directed to handover possession of all rooms occupied to appellants.