IN THE  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                  CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION                                      CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6690 OF 2005   

 Vinay Kumar Gupta ..   Appellant(s)

                    Versus

Gomti Devi and Ors. ..   Respondent(s)                                                           O R D E R

1. The appellant-landlord has questioned the legality of the order passed by the

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad  dated July 30, 2003 passed in Civil Misc. Writ

Petition No. 31938 of 2002.  By the said order, the High Court affirmed the finding of

fact recorded by the Court of prescribed authority and confirmed by the appellate

authority recording bona fide requirement of the landlord for getting possession of the

suit  premises  from the  respondent-tenants  under Section 21  of  the Utter Pradesh

Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short, the

Act).   

2. The High Court, however, observed in the impugned judgment that during

the pendency of proceedings before the appellate forum, the landlord had made an

offer to grant  alternative accommodation to the tenants of which the landlord has got

possession in pursuance of a decree passed in another suit.  The High Court  observed

that the learned counsel for  the tenants fairly accepted that such a relief  

..2/-

C.A. No. 6690/2005..contd..

: 2 :

may be  granted  in  favour of  the  tenants  and,  accordingly,  an  order  was  passed

directing  the  appellant-landlord  to  make available  to  the  tenants,  the  alternative

accommodation in  respect  of  which he  has  obtained  a decree of  possession  from

another tenant.

3. The  case  of  the  appellant  is   that  he  is  the  landlord.   He  required suit

premises for his  bona fide requirement and hence he initiated the proceedings under

Section 21 (1) of the Act.  The prescribed authority considered the case of the landlord

as also the defence put forward by the defendant-tenants and held that on the facts and

in the circumstances, it was proved by the landlord that he required the premises for

his bona fide use.  Accordingly, an order of eviction was passed against the tenants and

in favour of the landlord.   

4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the tenants preferred an appeal under

Section 22 of the Act. The appellate authority confirmed the finding recorded by the

trial Court and order was affirmed.

5. Looking to the relevant provisions of the Act, there is no doubt that there is

no   further remedy so  far as the Act is  concerned.  In view of  the said fact,  the

respondent-tenants approached the High Court by filing a writ petition.   

..3/-

C.A. No. 6690/2005..contd..

: 3 :

The High Court observed that both the authorities have held in favour of the landlord

with regard to bona fide requirement and there was no infirmity in the said finding.

6. The High Court, however, observed as under:

" In the judgment of the appellant court typed of which is annexure 7 to the writ petition, from page 93 to 130, it is mentioned at page 111 that landlord offered an alternative accommodation to the tenant of which the landlord had got possession in pursuance of decree passed in SCC Suit No. 18 of 1994, which was a suit filed by him against  another tenant  Laxmi Kant.   During  the  argument, learned counsel  for  the  petitioner was  asked  by  the  court  as  to whether his client would be ready to take the said house on rent in case court did  not  find any error in the judgment passed  by the courts below or not.  Learned counsel for the tenant petitioner very fairly stated that in case his argument on merit did not find favour with the court the alternative accommodation offered by the land lord might be given to the tenant-petitioner."

7. Keeping in view the above fact, the following direction was issued by the High

Court:

"Accordingly,  while dismissing the writ petition,  I  direct that the accommodation offered by the landlord mentioned in the judgment of the lower appellate court (with regard to which landlord filed SCC Suit No. 18 of 1994 against the other tenant Laxmi Kant) should be given to the tenant on rent in exchange of accommodation in  dispute  on  the  same  rate  of  rent  at  which  the  present accommodation is  in tenancy of  the tenant petitioner.  Prescribed Authority is  directed  to  implement the  exchange,  which must  be simultaneous i.e. both the parties shall get possession on the  

..4/-

C.A. No. 6690/2005..contd..

: 4 :

same  date.   If  needed  be  an  Advocate  Commissioner  may  be appointed to affect the change of the possession.  Both the parties shall bear expenses of the Advocate Commissioner in equal share. However, the Prescribed Authority is at a liberty to adopt such mode for affecting the transfer, as it considers appropriate including police force if necessary.  Both parties must appear before the Prescribed Authority on 18.8.2003 with the certified copy of this judgment.  The petitioner shall not be evicted till the exchange."

8.    The above direction of the High Court is challenged by the landlord  in the present

appeal.  Notice was issued by this Court on October 06,  2003 and  status  quo was

ordered to  be  maintained until further orders.   Leave was thereafter granted and

hearing was ordered to be expedited.   Today the matter has been placed for final

hearing.   

9. It may be stated that during the pendency of the proceedings in this Court,

the appellant died and his heirs and legal representatives have been brought on record.

10 We have heard learned counsel for the parties.   

11. Learned counsel for the appellant-landlord contended that the High Court

has committed an error of law and of jurisdiction in issuing direction to the landlord to

make available alternative accommodation which he had obtained by getting a decree

from another tenant.  It was stated that even if the High Court felt that such an offer

was made  

..5/-

C.A. No. 6690/2005..contd..

: 5 :

before the appellate authority without observing anything as to what had happened to

that offer and whether the landlord was still willing to continue to make the said offer

in favour of the tenants, no direct order could have been passed by the High Court.  To

that extent, therefore, the  order passed by the High Court deserves to be set aside.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent-tenants,  on the other hand,  submitted

that the High Court considered the fact that such an offer was made by the landlord

before the appellate authority.  If that fact was taken into account by the High Court

and a direction was issued, it cannot be said that no such order could have been passed

by the  Court.  In any case, under Article 136 of the Constitution, this Court may not

interfere with such direction.  Alternatively, the learned counsel submitted that if this

Court  feels  that  no  such  order could  have been  passed  by  the  High  Court,  the

impugned order may be set aside by remitting the matter to the High Court for fresh

disposal in accordance with law.

13. Having heard learned counsel  for the  parties,  in  our opinion,  the  appeal

deserves to be allowed.  So far as bona fide requirement of the landlord is concerned,

the prescribed authority recorded a finding of fact in favour of the  

..6/-

C.A. No. 6690/2005..contd..

: 6 :  

landlord.   The  said  finding   was  confirmed  by  the  appellate  authority.   In  the

circumstances,  even  otherwise,  in  our  opinion,  the  High  Court  could  not  have

interfered with  the finding of fact recorded by the prescribed authority and confirmed

by the appellate authority in exercise of power of superintendence.

14. The question then only remains with regard to the direction of the High Court

to make alternative accommodation available to the respondent-tenants.  Even if it is

true that  

such an offer was made by the landlord when the appeal was pending before the

appellate authority, the High Court without recording a finding against the landlord or

without confirming  whether landlord still wanted to abide by the said offer, could not

have issued  a direction  to  the  landlord  to  give  alternative accommodation to  the

tenants.  On that ground alone, the order of the High Court deserves to be interfered

with to that extent and the appeal filed by the appellant must succeed.  In view of

finding of fact by all Courts, in our opinion, the case need not be remanded to the High

Court for consideration.

15. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed.  The finding as to

bona fide requirement of the landlord recorded in favour of the appellant-landlord  

..7/-

C.A. No. 6690/2005..contd..

: 7 :

deserves no interference.  The direction to the appellant-landlord that he will give

possession of alternative accommodation to the tenants in respect of which he had

obtained possession from another tenant cannot be said to be legal or lawful and is,

therefore, set aside.

16. The appeal is partly allowed to the above extent with no order as to costs.

17. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent-tenants stated that the premises

in question is residential accommodation and if  decree will be executed immediately,

serious prejudice will be caused to the tenants.  Learned counsel, therefore, prays for

one year's time to vacate the premises.  Learned counsel for the landlord, however,

submitted that the proceedings are of 1992 and the order was passed in favour of the

landlord believing  bona fide  requirement of the landlord.  He submitted that at the

most six months' time may be granted.

18. In  our  opinion,  ends  of  justice  would  be  met  if  we  grant  time  to  the

respondent-tenants till August 31, 2009 to vacate the premises subject to filing usual

undertaking  

..8/-

C.A. No. 6690/2005..contd..

: 8 :

within four weeks from  today.  A copy of such undertaking will be given to the learned

counsel for the appellant landlord.      

19. Ordered accordingly.

                                       ....................J            [ C.K. THAKKER  ]  

                                       ....................J           [ AFTAB ALAM ] NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 05, 2008.