ITEM NO.107               Court No.6             SECTION XI

           S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS                     CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 1264 OF 2009

MEHMOOD RAHMAT ULLAH KHAN & ANR.                  Appellant (s)

                VERSUS

NIYAZ AHMAD KHAN                                  Respondent(s)

(With prayer for interim relief and office report )

WITH Civil Appeal NO. 1073 of 2009 (With prayer for interim relief and office report)

Date: 23/02/2011  This Appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MARKANDEY KATJU         HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GYAN SUDHA MISRA

For Appellant(s)                     Mr. Irshad Ahmad,Adv.

                   Mr. Bimal Roy Jad, Adv.

For Respondent(s)                    Mr. Bimal Roy Jad,Adv.

Mr. Vikram Rathore, Adv.                    

Mr. Irshad Ahmad, Adv.

          UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following                                O R D E R  

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1264 OF 2009

The appeal is disposed of accordingly. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1073 OF 2009

The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.

( Deepak Mansukhani ) Court Master

( Indu Satija ) Court Master

(The signed order is placed on the file)

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1264 OF 2009

MEHMOOD RAHMAT ULLAH KHAN & ANR.                  Appellant (s)

                VERSUS

NIYAZ AHMAD KHAN                                  Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1073 OF 2009

O R D E R

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1264 OF 2009 Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

This Appeal has been filed against the impugned Judgment dated  

8.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Allahabad.

The appellant herein is a landlord of premises in question and the  

respondent is the tenant.  The appellant filed a Petition under Section  

21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Building Act, 1972 alleging that he has bonafide  

need of the premises and hence the tenant should be evicted.  The  

prescribed authority found that the landlord could not establish his  

bonafide need and hence it rejected the Petition.  The tenant filed an  

appeal and the Appellate Court has upheld the finding that there is no  

bonafide need of the premises of the landlord.

-2-

Surprisingly,  the  High  Court  while  upholding  the  finding  that  

there is no bonafide need of the landlord has allowed the Writ Petition  

by the impugned Judgment dated 8.10.2007 by increasing the rent.   

It is well settled that a High Court in Writ Petition cannot  

interfere with the finding of fact, regarding bonafide need.

We are also of the opinion that under Section 21, there is no  

question of enhancement of rent. That may be done under some other  

provision of the Act.   

Accordingly, we dispose of this appeal with the direction that the  

impugned Judgment is set aside and Judgment of First Appellate Court  

rejecting  the  Petition  under  Section  21  is  upheld.   The  direction  

increasing rent is set aside.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1073 OF 2009

This Appeal has been filed against the impugned Judgment dated  

8.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Allahabad.

The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence we  

are not repeating the same here.

-3-

Under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings Act, 1972, the

prescribed authority can either allow the Petition for eviction of the  

tenant or it can refuse to do so.  It cannot enhance the rent under  

those proceedings.  Hence, we set aside the impugned Judgment of the  

High Court.

The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.

..........................J. (MARKANDEY KATJU)

..........................J. (GYAN SUDHA MISRA)

NEW DELHI FEBRUARY 23, 2011.