RAMESH CHANDRA BHANDARI Vs. RAM SINGH SALAL
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 575 of 2016, Judgment Date: Jan 18, 2016
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 be payable by the
respondent to the appellant.
………...................................J.
[J. CHELAMESWAR]
…...……..................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
New Delhi;
January 18, 2016
-----------------------
11