CHHOTE LAL NISHAD (D) Vs. RAVINDER KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 6475 of 2008, Judgment Date: Apr 05, 2017

                                                              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 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 :-

“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
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 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.