RAMESH CHANDRA BHANDARI Vs RAM SINGH SALAL
Bench: J. CHELAMESWAR,ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE
Case number: C.A. No.-000575-000575 / 2016
Diary number: 40029 / 2015
Advocates: SUSHIL BALWADA Vs
Page 1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No. 575 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No. 21/2016)
Ramesh Chandra Bhandari …….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Ram Singh Salal ……Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed against the judgment and
order dated 31.08.2015 passed by the High Court of
Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 1696 of
2012 (M/s) whereby the High Court allowed the writ
petition filed by the appellant-landlord thereby
granting the decree for eviction against the
respondent in relation to the suit shop but at the
1
Page 2
same time further granting two years’ time to the
respondent to vacate the suit shop.
3. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.
They, however, need mention in brief to appreciate
the short controversy involved in the appeal.
4. The appellant is the plaintiff whereas the
respondent is the defendant.
5. The appellant is the owner/landlord of the suit
premises, which is situated at Almora (Uttaranchal).
The appellant was an Army official who retired in
1983. He let out the suit premises (shop) to the
respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.800/-, who
carries on his business in the suit shop.
6. The appellant filed an application under
Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972
(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) against the
respondent seeking his eviction from the suit
2
Page 3
premises. The eviction was sought on the ground of
appellant’s bona fide need for starting a business for
his son who is physically disabled.
7. The respondent denied the need and contested
the eviction petition filed by the appellant. The
matter reached to this Court at the instance of the
appellant in the first round of litigation which
eventually ended in granting liberty to the appellant
to file a fresh eviction petition on the changed
circumstances against the respondent for his
eviction from the suit shop.
8. This is how the second round of litigation
again started in 1997 between the parties out of
which this appeal arises. The ground for seeking
eviction was bona fide need for the son to start
business based on subsequent events. The
Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Sr. Division)
Almora, Uttarakhand by his order dated
3
Page 4
08.05.2009 in Rent Case No. 2 of 2006 decreed the
appellant's eviction petition and accordingly
directed the respondent to vacate the suit shop
within 2 months. It was held that the appellant's
need to seek eviction as pleaded in the petition is
bona fide and that he has no other alternative
suitable accommodation of his own in the city where
his son can carry on the business.
9. Against the said order, the respondent filed an
appeal being Rent Appeal No. 3 of 2009 before the
District Judge, Almora, who by order dated
10.07.2012 allowed the appeal and set aside the
judgment passed by the prescribed authority.
10. Felt aggrieved by the said judgment, the
appellant filed writ petition before the High Court.
By impugned order, the High Court allowed the
petition and while restoring the order of the
prescribed authority and ordering respondent's
4
Page 5
eviction from the suit shop, granted 2 years’ time to
the respondent to vacate the suit shop.
11. The appellant has filed this appeal feeling
aggrieved only against that part of the order by
which the High Court has granted 2 years’ time to
the respondent to vacate the suit shop.
12. So far as the respondent is concerned, he has
not filed any appeal against the impugned order.
13. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
14. Submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant was only one. According to him, the High
Court having rightly allowed the appellant’s eviction
petition by accepting the bona fide need of the
appellant erred in granting two years’ time to the
respondent to vacate the suit shop. Learned counsel
urged that granting of 2 years’ time to the
respondent to vacate the suit shop virtually nullified
the effect of the impugned order because despite
5
Page 6
holding the appellant’s need to be bona fide, the
appellant is not in a position to use the suit shop for
two years due to directions in the impugned order
and hence the very purpose of filing the eviction
petition and obtaining the eviction order has been
frustrated. He submitted that to obviate the
hardship likely to be suffered by the respondent due
to passing of the eviction order against him, the
High Court could have taken care of such issue by
granting the respondent some reasonable time
which is usually of two or three months to vacate
the suit shop but by no stretch of imagination the
High Court could have granted 2 years’ period and
that too without there being any justifiable cause
alleged by the respondent in the pleadings. Learned
counsel, therefore, urged that having regard to the
facts and circumstances, this Court, if consider it
proper, may grant some reasonable time of 2 or 3
6
Page 7
months to the respondent to vacate the suit shop.
15. Learned counsel for the respondent, however,
supported the impugned order contending that it
does not call for any interference.
16. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
are inclined to accept the submission of the learned
counsel for the appellant as in our opinion, it has
substance.
17. In our considered view, the High Court having
rightly allowed the appellant's writ petition by
accepting the need of the appellant to be the bona
fide need of his son for starting a business in the
suit shop was not justified in granting 2 years’ time
to the respondent to vacate the suit shop. In the
absence of any justifiable cause alleged by the
respondent to prove extreme hardship and further
in the absence of any statutory provision or any
7
Page 8
contract between the parties to that effect, there
was no justification on the part of the High Court to
exercise its discretion and grant 2 years’ time to the
respondent to vacate the suit shop.
18. The High Court, in our view, should have
appreciated the fact that the present litigation was
the outcome of the second round of litigation after
conclusion of the first round which began in 1986
and reached up to this Court and in this process
this litigation consumed 20 years. In these
circumstances the hardship is suffered more by the
appellant as compared to the respondent.
19. The Act in question is a legislation which
provides for regulation and control of letting and
rent of the accommodation. It regulates and control
eviction of tenants from accommodations and for
other matters connected therewith as incidental
thereto. It further provides for expeditious trial of
8
Page 9
eviction cases on ground of bona fide requirement of
certain categories of landlords. The State
legislature, in its wisdom further considered
appropriate to give more benefit to the landlords
who are serving or retired Indian soldier or their
widows and accordingly amended Section 21 by Act
No.17/1985. This amendment inter alia provides a
statutory deeming presumption of the need set up
by such landlord to be sufficient if he seeks the
eviction for his personal requirement or for the
benefit of any member of his family. The object
behind this amendment is to relieve such landlord
from the hardship so that he is able to get the
building/accommodation vacated early for his
personal use. In this case, we find that this benefit
was denied to the appellant due to long pendency of
the case.
20. Be that as it may, in the light of foregoing
9
Page 10
discussion and having regard to all facts and
circumstances of the case and as offered by the
appellant, we grant time to the respondent up to
“31st August, 2016” to vacate the suit shop subject
to the respondent depositing with the appellant the
entire arrears of rent, (if there are arrears) up to
date at the rate paid by the respondent within one
month and further subject to respondent paying to
the appellant the rent at the same rate up to 31st
August, 2016 as damages by way of use and
occupation including cost amount awarded by this
Court within one month and furnish undertaking
before this Court within one month to vacate the
suit shop within the time fixed by the Court.
21. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal
succeeds and is allowed in part. Impugned order is
modified to the extent indicated above.
22. Cost of appeal is quantified at Rs.10,000/- to
10
Page 11
be payable by the respondent to the appellant.
………...................................J. [J. CHELAMESWAR]
…...……..................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi; January 18, 2016
11