SUDHA AGRAWAL versus XTH ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS.

SUDHA AGRAWAL versus XTH ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS.

Explanation (i) to the fourth proviso of Section 21(1) does not create a presumption of bonafide need in favour of the landlord; the landlord must establish the bonafide need independently even if the tenant is debarred from contesting.

Parties
Appellant: Sudha Agrawal; Respondent: Xth Additional District Judge and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 August 1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Outcome
appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Eviction, Bonafide Requirement, Statutory Presumption, Application of Explanation (i), Hardship Comparison
Landlord and Tenant Statutory Interpretation Eviction Bonafide Requirement Statutory Presumption Application of Explanation (i) Hardship Comparison

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sudha Agrawal

Appellant

Xth Additional District Judge and Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether explanation (i) to fourth proviso of Section 21(1) creates a presumption of bonafide need in favour of the landlord
  2. 2 Applicability and effect of explanation (i) to fourth proviso of Section 21(1) of U.P. Urban Buildings Act

Ratio Decidendi

Explanation (i) to the fourth proviso of Section 21(1) does not create a presumption of bonafide need in favour of the landlord; the landlord must establish the bonafide need independently even if the tenant is debarred from contesting.

Court Disposition

appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.