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