REPORTABLE

IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No. 7300 OF 2005

Deep Chandra Juneja                                  .....        Appellant

Versus

Smt. Lajwanti Kathuria (Dead) Through L.Rs.  .....     Respondents  

J U D G M E N T

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order

dated 06.02.2004 passed by the learned Single Judge of the

High  Court  of  Judicature  at  Allahabad  dismissing  the  writ

petition filed by the appellant-tenant.  Challenge in the writ

petition was to the order passed by the prescribed authority as

affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 1,

Kanpur  Nagar  (Appellate  Authority)  allowing  the  release

application of Smt. Lajwanti Kathuria respondent-landlady.   

Facts, in brief, leading to the origin of this case, are as

under:-

Smt.  Lajwanti  Kathuria,  respondent–landlady  was  the

owner of house No. 251 Ghaoo Khera Post, Chakeri, Harjinder

Nagar,  Kanpur.   The  appellant  herein  is  the  tenant  on the

ground floor of the demised premises consisting of one room

with doo-chatti (store), courtyard, one bathroom, one toilet and

kitchen since the year 1972 on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/-.

The landlady filed release application No. 18 of 2001 under

Section 21(1)(a)  of  the U.  P.  Urban Buildings (Regulation of

Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 [for short ‘the Act’]  for

the need of her sons, daughters-in-law and grand children.  In

the release  application,  respondent-landlady stated that her

husband  Shri  Chaman Lal  Kathuria,  before  his  death,  was

carrying on kiryana business in small portion of the premises.

She stated that she has a large family to support comprising

herself, two married sons and their children and one daughter

2

and  her  children.   According  to  the  landlady,  she  urgently

needed  additional  accommodation  to  provide  proper  and

comfortable  living  rooms,  kitchens  and  bathrooms  for  her

children  who  are  facing  tremendous  inconvenience  and

hardships on account of shortage of accommodation.

The release application was contested by the appellant-

tenant by filing written statement and denying the claim of the

landlady.  He,  inter alia,  took the stand that the claim of the

landlady  was  not  bona  fide and  genuine  and  the  release

application  has  been  moved  with  the  mal-intention  of

harassing  him.   It  was  also  alleged  that  the  sons  of  the

landlady were residing with her and the landlady did not need

more accommodation because other tenants who were living

in the building had vacated the accommodations, which were

again let out by her to new tenants on higher rent.  He also

stated that the landlady was having one more house No. 377,

N-2 Road, Lal Bungalow, Harjinder Nagar, Kanpur.

3

Both  the  parties  were  directed  by  the  prescribed

authority to submit their affidavits in support of their claims

and counter-claims.

The  prescribed  authority  vide order  dated  05.03.2003

allowed the release application of the landlady and directed

the  appellant-tenant  to  hand over  vacant  possession  of  the

rented accommodation to the landlady within one month.

Against the said order, Rent Appeal No.17 of 2003 was

filed by the appellant-tenant before  the Appellate  Authority,

which was dismissed on 05.01.2004.

Being  aggrieved  against  and  dissatisfied  with  the

judgment and order of the Appellate Authority, the appellant-

tenant  preferred  Civil  Misc.  Writ  Petition  No.  3132  of  2004

before the High Court of Allahabad, which was dismissed by

the  learned  Single  Judge  by  impugned  judgment.   The

relevant paragraph of the judgment is extracted as under:-

“The  courts  below  after  taking  into consideration  the  entire  material  on record, recorded finding of bona fide need and  comparative  hardship  in  favour  of landlord.  The impugned order requires no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

4

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

However,  the  petitioner  is  granted  one year’s  time  to  vacate  the  premises, provided  that  within  one  month  from today, he files an undertaking before  the Prescribed  Authority  that  on  or  before expiry  of  aforesaid period  of  one  year  he will  willingly  vacate  and  handover  the possession of the house in dispute to the landlord.”

Now, the appellant-tenant has preferred this appeal  by

way of special leave challenging the correctness and validity of

the order of the High Court.  

During  the  pendency  of  the  appeal,  the  respondent-

landlady died and was substituted by her legal heirs.   

Mr. Z. M. Naiyer, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the appellant-tenant, contended that the approach of the High

Court  in  dismissing  the  Writ  Petition  in  slip-shod  manner

without recording reasons is  erroneous.   He submitted that

the courts below have committed manifest  error of  law and

jurisdiction in entertaining and allowing second application for

release of the demised premises as her first application for the

5

same relief was already allowed by the Appellate Authority in

Appeal No.4 of 1983 and two release orders in respect of the

same  accommodation,  one  conditional  and  other  blanket,

cannot  co-exist  and  that  being  the  position,  the  impugned

orders are vitiated in law.  He next contended that the second

application for the release of the demised premises filed by the

landlady was an abuse of process of law and the courts below

should not have entertained the second release application of

the landlady to perpetrate a fraud in judicial  proceedings to

achieve her nefarious designs.  It was also contended that the

landlady before her death had possessed 11 cozy rooms with

other allied accommodation for the need of her 5 adults and 4

minor members  of the family,  which are  quite  sufficient  for

their peaceful living, but while determining the bona fide need

of the landlady the courts below have ignored the comparative

hardship of the appellant-tenant.

Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta-II, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondents-legal representative of landlady, on

the other hand, contended that the prescribed authority on

6

proper  and careful  consideration of  the evidence  led by the

parties before it, passed a reasoned order of eviction against

the appellant-tenant, the said order has been affirmed by the

Appellate Authority and also by the High Court.  He submitted

that  this  Court  ordinarily  should  not  interfere  with  the

concurrent  findings  of  facts  recorded  by  the  competent

courts/authorities  in  exercise  of  its  power  and  jurisdiction

under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

We have  duly  considered  the  respective  contentions  of

the  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  and  perused  the  entire

material on record.

The facts narrated hereinbefore are not in dispute to the

extent that the landlady rented the demised premises to the

appellant-tenant for residential purpose.  It appears from the

record that on 26.11.1982/27.11.1982 an application bearing

R.C. No.67 of 1982 was filed by late Smt. Lajwanti Kathuria –

landlady  against  the  appellant-tenant  for  release  of  the

demised premises.  The said application was dismissed by the

prescribed authority pre-dominantly  on the ground that the

7

premises earlier vacated by some tenants were not utilised by

the  landlady  for  the  use  and  occupation  of  her  family

members,  but  in  fact  those  were  let  out  to  new  tenants.

However,  the  appeal  filed  by  the  landlady  against  the

impugned order of the prescribed authority was allowed by the

Appellate  Authority  on  21.05.1983,  whereby  the  appellant-

tenant was directed to vacate the demised premises and shift

to an alternate accommodation being offered by the landlady.

It was also ordered that in case the appellant-tenant failed to

vacate the premises in question within the stipulated period,

the  landlady  would  get  possession  of  the  accommodation

through Court proceedings.  The appellant-tenant submitted

that  the  landlady  did  not  provide  the  alternative

accommodation  in  terms  of  the  order  of  the  Appellate

Authority  and  allowed  the  stalemate  to  continue.    The

landlady filed second release application which was registered

Rent  Case  No.18  of  2001  on  the  file  of  the  prescribed

authority, Kanpur Nagar.  From the pleadings of the parties,

both  the  prescribed  authority  and  the  Appellate  Authority

have noted that the landlady at the time of filing of the release

8

application in the year 2001 was residing in the same house

with her elder  son, Satish Kathuria,  his educated wife Smt.

Namita  and  her  grandsons  Abhishek,  Rajat  and  grand-

daughter  Karishma and younger son Joginder Kathuria,  his

educated wife Smt. Rajani, grand-daughter Tanu; her married

daughter  Smt.  Neelam  Khanna,  son-in-law Manish  Khanna

and their  daughters  Kum. Kirti  and Kum.  Neha.   She filed

affidavit in support of her release application stating inter alia

that  her  elder  son  is  a  Contractor/Builder,  and  he  needs

separate  room for  his  educated  wife  and  children  who  are

studying in convent school; she needed room for her second

son Joginder Kathuria, an Advocate and his educated wife and

daughter  and  separate  accommodation  for  her  married

daughter, son-in-law and their children who have frequently

been paying visits to her house because of her old age.  She

also stated that she needed one room for her old lady friends,

one room for prayer purpose and one room to be used as a

Museum to preserve some articles of her late husband.   She

stated that the appellant-tenant took the demised premises on

rent  in  July  1972  with  clear  understanding  that  being  a

9

member of Indian Air Force, he would be transferred from his

place of posting within a period of 3 to 4 years and then he

would  vacate  the  premises  forthwith.   The  appellant-tenant

retired in the year 1984 and thereafter he started running a

small  provision  store  in  the  name  and  style  of  ‘Juneja

Provision Store’.   Rajiv Juneja, the elder son of the appellant-

tenant, is doing construction work in the name of M/s Juneja

Engineering and also doing the business of chemical sale and

purchase  in  one  portion  of  House  No.229  Patel  Nagar,

Shanker Nagar.  He is living in rented accommodation along

with his wife and children at 140-C Ramgali, Harjinder Nagar,

Kanpur,  where  he  is  in  occupation  of  three  rooms,  one

bathroom,  latrine,  kitchen  and  verandah.  He  is  also  doing

travel  agency  business  in  the  name  of  Juneja  Travels  at

Pardemanpura, Harjinder Nagar, Kanpur.  It was stated that

Ajay  Juneja,  the  second  son  of  the  appellant-tenant,  is  a

teacher in Virendra Swaroop Education Centre and his wife is

doing  some  business  and  they  are  living  in  House  No.

124A/272,  Block  11,  Govind  Nagar,  Kanpur,  having  five

rooms, latrine, bathroom, kitchen, verandah and courtyard.   

10

One  more  son  of  the  appellant-tenant,  namely,  Vijay

Juneja, is working as a T.V. Engineer in Thomson Co. and his

educated wife is a teacher.   They are occupying two rooms,

latrine,  bathroom,  kitchen  and  verandah  as  tenants  in

premises No.  1-A Ghaoo Khera Post  Chakeri,  Kanpur.  The

landlady also contended that the appellant-tenant had sub-let

the rented accommodation to one R. N. Singh on monthly rent

of Rs.300/-, in respect of which Civil Suit No. 1112 of 2000

titled  R. N. Singh v.  D.C. Juneja is pending in the Court of

Civil  Judge  (J/D),  Kanpur  Nagar.   The  landlady also  stated

that she filed Civil Suit No.397 of 1997 against the appellant-

tenant in the Court of J.S.C.C., Kanpur Nagar, for ejectment of

the  appellant-tenant  inter alia  on the  grounds  of  default  in

payment  of  rent,  sub-tenancy  and  damage  to  the  demised

house and the said suit is still  pending.  It  was also stated

that the appellant-tenant has constructed a house over one

plot at Gandhi Gram and the appellant-tenant and his family

members  are  financially  very  sound.   The  daughter  of  the

appellant-tenant is married and she is residing at Lucknow.

11

The appellant-tenant denied the genuine requirement of

the landlady.  However,  he submitted that in fact there are

only  nine  family  members  of  the  landlady  and  not  ten  to

thirteen members as alleged by her.  He stated that in the past

over several years, the landlady had evicted many tenants and

thereafter  she let  out  the accommodations to other persons

during  the  pendency  of  the  present  eviction  application.

Looking to the strength of the family members of the landlady

and accommodation available with them, the landlady did not

need any additional accommodation as per the version of the

appellant-tenant.  He stated that he is living in the demised

premises  with  his  wife,  son  Rajiv  and  his  wife  Gayatri,

grandson Nikhil and his second son Vijay and his wife Rinku,

whereas his third son Ajay Juneja is living in a separate house

No.124A/272,  Block  11,  Govind  Nagar,  Kanpur,  which was

owned by Ajay’s grandfather late Shri Sant Ram Juneja.  He

stated  that  he  has  no  other  accommodation  in  the  city  of

Kanpur.   He  denied  the allegation of  sub-letting the  rented

accommodation to one R.N. Singh at the rate of Rs.300/- per

month and stated that the landlady got false suit instituted

12

against him through R.N. Singh.  He submitted that as the

landlady  refused  to accept  the  rent  he,  therefore,  has been

regularly depositing the settled rent under Section 30(1) of the

Act  in  the  Court  of  Civil  Judge,  Junior  Division,  Kanpur

Nagar.   He pleaded that if he is ordered to be evicted from the

demised  premises,  he  will  suffer  irreparable  injury  and

hardship as compared to the landlady.  

The  prescribed  authority,  on  assessment  of  the  entire

evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the appellant-

tenant has failed to establish that the landlady had let  out

some portions of the house to the new tenants on higher rent.

The prescribed authority stated in its order that the landlady

has filed on record Paper No.28 in which residential address of

the appellant-tenant is mentioned as 1A, Ghaoo Khera, and

other  Paper  Nos.29,  30,  31  and  32  also  reveal  the  same

address of the appellant-tenant.  On the basis of the oral as

well  as  documentary  evidence  on  record,  the  prescribed

authority came to the conclusion that the appellant-tenant is

residing with his son Vijay Juneja and his family members.

13

The averments of the landlady in her eviction application that

the  appellant-tenant  has  got  House  No.140-C  Ramgali,

Harjinder Nagar, 220, Patel Nagar, 1/382 N-2 Road, Harjinder

Nagar,  has  been  supported  by  Ashok  Kumar  and  Rakesh

Kumar  in  their  affidavits.   On  comparative  scrutiny  of  the

statements pleaded by both the parties in their pleadings and

supported  by  their  evidence,  the  prescribed  authority  has

noticed that in the Voter List Paper Nos. 45 and 46 for the

year  1995-99  name  of  Ajay  Juneja,  son  of  the  appellant-

tenant,  has  not  been  shown  as  occupant  of  premises

No.124A/272, Block 11, Govind Nagar, as contended by the

appellant-tenant  in  his  written  statement  and deposition  in

the affidavit.   In fact, Ajay Juneja at the relevant time, was

residing at house No. 251 and later on he shifted to premises

No. 124A/272.  The appellant-tenant, during the pendency of

the eviction proceedings, has not made any attempt to secure

alternate accommodation and he has been found living with

other  members  of  the  family  in  some  other  house  and  the

prescribed  authority  as  also  the  Appellate  Authority  on

scrutiny  of  the  evidence  have  concluded  that  House

14

No.124A/272 was owned by the father of the appellant-tenant,

which was transferred in the name of Ajay Juneja, son of the

appellant-tenant,  by  executing  a  collusive  Will  with  clear

intention to show that the appellant-tenant does not own any

house in Kanpur City and in order to frustrate the need of the

landlady.  Both the courts below recorded concurrent findings

of  facts  that  the  appellant-tenant  and  his  family  members

have got separate accommodation in Kanpur City and on the

basis  of  the  evidence  on  record,  the  requirement  of  the

accommodation of the landlady is bona fide  and genuine and

the  comparative  hardship  also  is  more  pressing  to  the

landlady in comparison to the appellant-tenant.   In that view

of the matter, the High Court in its jurisdiction under Article

226 of the Constitution has rightly dismissed the writ petition

of the appellant-tenant on the premises of concurrent findings

of facts.    

In the backdrop of the facts, indisputably, the landlady

could file an application before the prescribed authority for the

eviction  of  the  appellant-tenant  from  the  premises  under

15

tenancy or any specified  portion thereof  and the prescribed

authority after satisfying itself that the ground as stipulated in

Section 21 of the Act does exist, the eviction order has been

validly passed against the appellant-tenant.   

Rule  16  of  the  U.  P.  Urban  Buildings  (Regulation  of

Letting,  Rent  and  Eviction)  Rules,  1972,  prescribes  certain

factors  which  have  also  to  be  taken  into  account  by  the

prescribed  authority  while  considering  the  application  for

eviction of a tenant on the ground of bona fide need.  Sub-rule

(1)  of  Rule  16  relates  to  the  cases  of  eviction  from  an

accommodation for the purpose of residence by the landlord

or any members of his family.  Considering the facts in the

light of Rule 16 pressed into service on behalf of the appellant-

tenant that taking into consideration the length of the period

of  tenancy,  the  eviction  of  the  appellant-tenant  from  the

premises in question is in violation of the provision of Rule 16,

in our opinion, cannot be accepted.     

In  Gaya Prasad v.  Pradeep Srivastava [(2001) 2 SCC

604, this Court held that the need of the landlord is to be seen

16

on the date of application for release.  In Prativa Devi v. T.V.

Krishnan [(1996) 5 SCC 353], it was held that the landlord is

the best judge of his requirement and courts have no concern

to  dictate  the  landlord  as  to  how and  in  what  manner  he

should live.   In  Rishi Kumar Govil  v.  Maqsoodan & Ors.

[(2007)  4  SCC  465],  this  Court  while  dealing  with  the

provisions  of  Section  21(1)(a)  of  the  U.  P.  Urban  Buildings

(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 and Rule

16 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent

and Eviction) Rules,  1972, held that the bona fide personal

need of the landlord is a question of fact and should not be

normally interfered with.

Having regard to the well-reasoned concurrent findings

and reasoning recorded by the prescribed authority and the

Appellate Authority, which are affirmed by the High Court in

writ  petition,  we  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  impugned

judgment warrants no interference inasmuch as no illegality,

infirmity or error of jurisdiction could be shown before us by

the appellant-tenant.

17

In  the result,  for the above-stated reasons, we find no

merit in this appeal and it is dismissed, accordingly.

However, considering the period for which the premises

in  question  was  in  the  occupation  of  the  appellant-tenant,

time is granted till 31.06.2009 to vacate the premises, subject

to filing of an affidavit by way of usual undertaking before the

prescribed authority within a period of four weeks to deliver

the vacant possession on or before the stipulated date.   There

will be no order as to costs.                      

........................................J.                                                 (C. K. Thakker)

........................................J.                                                 (Lokeshwar Singh Panta) New Delhi, July 10, 2008.

18