Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6475 OF 2008

CHHOTE LAL NISHAD (D)                     Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS

RAVINDER KUMAR SRIVASTAVA                 Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

1. This  appeal  arises  out  of  the  impugned  order passed by the High Court of judicature at Allahabad in  Writ  Petition  No.  11  of  2007  (R/C)  dated 05.02.2007 in and by which, the High Court has set aside the order passed by the Rent Control Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority, dismissing the Eviction Petition filed by the respondent-landlord.

2. The  respondent-landlord,  a  practising  advocate, filed an eviction suit, being Suit No. 2 of 2000 and the same was dismissed by the Rent Control/Eviction Officer by order dated 09.01.2001.

3. Being  aggrieved,  the  respondent-landlord  filed Civil  Revision Petition  No. 24  of 2001  before the Additional  District  Magistrate  against  the  order

Page 2

dated 09.01.2001, which also came to be dismissed on 08.02.2002.

4. Being aggrieved, the respondent-landlord took the matter to the High Court in Writ Petition No. 11 of 2007 (R/C).

5. In the writ petition, the High Court quashed the impugned order passed by the District Judge, Faizabad dated 04.05.1998 as well as the orders passed by the Rent  Controller  and  allowed  the  writ  petition, holding that the courts below ignored the fact and evidence  that  the  landlord  bonafide  requires  the house for himself and his family members and for his legal profession.  Though the High Court allowed the writ petition, the High Court granted liberty to the respondent-landlord  to  file  a  fresh  application before  the  Rent  Control  Officer,  Faizabad  or  any other  duly  authorised  officer  by  the  District Magistrate,  Faizabad,  highlighting  all  the facts/details of family members, his legal practice etc. and issued further direction to the Rent Control Officer.

6. We may usefully extract the impugned order of the High Court, which reads as under :-

Page 3

“This  Court  has  appreciated  the bonafide need of a lawyer in various judgments as reported in 1995 (1) ARC 200, Surjan Sing Vs. IX A.D.J. Kapur (Para6),  1984(2)  ARC  548,  Prem  Nath Bhatia Vs. Munsi Lal Nigam and others (Para 8) and 1993(1) ARC 362, Shobha Ram  and  others  vs.  VII  Additional District  Judge,  Deoria.   The  learned court below ought to have taken into consideration  the  landlords'  status, number  of  members  of  the  family  and arrival  and  entertainment  of  guests, relatives and clients, etc.  In view of the  law  laid  down  by  the  Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in (2005) 8 SCC 252, Sait Nagjee Purshotham & Co. Ltd. Vs. Vimalabai Prabhulal and others and JT 1996(6) SC 468 Mrs. Meenal Eknath Kshisagar  Vs.  M/s  Traders  &  Agencies and others as also a decision of this Court  as  reported  in  1988  AWC  1063 Cappanal Vs. A. D. J. Moradabad, the bona fide and genuine need of landlord cannot be ignored.   In view of above, the writ petition

is  allowed  and  the  impugned  order passed by the District Judge, Faizabad on  04.05.1998  and  the  rent  control authorities' orders are quashed.  The Petitioner is directed to file a fresh application  before  the  Rent  Control Officer,  Faizabad  or  other  competent authority  duly  authorised  by  the District  Magistrate,  Faizabad

Page 4

highlighing  all  the  facts/details  of family members, his legal practice etc. On receiving such an application, the Rent Control Officer shall dispose of the same by passing appropriate orders after  following  due  procedure  as provided under the act No. XIII of 1972 and after giving opportunity of hearing to the present tenant.  The Petitioner is  expected  to  place  all  the  cases cited  in  this  judgment  and  the decisions  given  by  this  court  as reported  in  2005-2006  Allahabad  Rent Cases.   This  exercise  shall  be completed within three months of filing of release application before the Rent Control  Officer,  competent  authority etc.  along  with  Judgment  of  this court.”         

7. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court,  the  appellant-tenant  is  before  this  Court. The only contention urged by the learned counsel for the  appellant-tenant  is  that,  while  quashing  the orders passed by the District Judge as well as the Rent  Controller, the  High Court  had not  chosen to issue  notice  to  the  appellant-tenant  and  the  High Court, while setting aside the orders, ought to have issued notice to the tenant.

8. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the order passed by the High Court, we

Page 5

do  not  think  that  the  contention  of  the appellant-tenant merits acceptance.  The High Court has,  while setting  aside the  orders passed  by the District Judge as well as the Rent Controller, only granted  liberty  to  the  respondent-landlord  to  file fresh  application  setting  out  all  the grounds/requirements.  By the impugned order passed by the High Court, in our view, no prejudice has been caused  to  the  appellant-tenant  as  the  eviction application  to  be  filed  by  the  respondent-landlord will be proceeded denovo.

9. The appeal is dismissed.  .......................J.

             [ R. BANUMATHI ]  

.......................J.               [ SANJAY KISHAN KAUL ]  

New Delhi; April 05, 2017.