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