(2016) 7 MLJ 355 (SC)
Gulshera Khanam vs. Aftab Ahmad
Date of Judgment :
27.09.2016
📌Tenancy Laws – Bona Fide Requirement – Family – Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act 1972), Sections 3(g), 21 and 21(1)(a) – Constitution of India (Constitution), Article 227 – Appellant/landlady filed application under Section 21(1)(a) of Act 1972 seeking release of shop in her favour for her bona fide requirement and genuine need in comparison to need of Respondent/tenant – Authority ordered eviction – Appeal against order dismissed – On Petition filed by Respondent, High Court set aside order of courts below and held that Appellant’s daughter is not member of family as defined under Section 3(g) of Act 1972 and Appellant’s need is not bona fide – Special Leave Appeal – Whether finding that Appellant’s married daughter does not fall within meaning of word “family” as defined under Section 3(g) of Act 1972 and, therefore, her need cannot be considered under Section 21 of the Act for granting eviction of tenant is proper – Whether High Court was justified in reversing concurrent findings of two courts below and justified in dismissing Appellant’s eviction petition filed against Respondent under Section 21 of Act 1972 – Held, Appellant’s daughter received her share and became co-owner of building along with other co-sharers and thus got legal right of residence in building – Appellant’s daughter fulfilled definition of “family” under Section 3(g) of Act 1972 – Appellant entitled to claim eviction of Respondent from building in question for need of her daughter – Bona fide need of Appellant’s daughter to expand activities of running the clinic was rightly held by Prescribed Authority and first appellate Court in Appellant’s favour – Settled principle that in rent matters, landlord is sole judge to decide as to how much space is needed for him/her to start or expand any of his/her activity was overlooked by High Court while deciding issue of need – High Court should have also seen that two courts below have recorded finding that Respondent was having his own shops in same area where he could shift his existing business activity without suffering any comparative hardship – Court unable to agree with reasoning and conclusion arrived at by High Court – Appeal allowed with costs.