Mehmood Rahmat Ullah Khan & Anr vs Niyaz Ahmad Khan

( Deepak Mansukhani ) ( Indu Satija ) Court Master Court Master

(The signed order is placed on the file)

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1264 OF 2009

MEHMOOD RAHMAT ULLAH KHAN & ANR. Appellant (s)

VERSUS

NIYAZ AHMAD KHAN Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1073 OF 2009

O R D E R

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1264 OF 2009 Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

This Appeal has been filed against the impugned Judgment dated

8.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Allahabad.

The appellant herein is a landlord of premises in question and the

respondent is the tenant. The appellant filed a Petition under Section

21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Building Act, 1972 alleging that he has bonafide

need of the premises and hence the tenant should be evicted. The

prescribed authority found that the landlord could not establish his

bonafide need and hence it rejected the Petition. The tenant filed an

appeal and the Appellate Court has upheld the finding that there is no

bonafide need of the premises of the landlord.

-2-

Surprisingly, the High Court while upholding the finding that

there is no bonafide need of the landlord has allowed the Writ Petition

by the impugned Judgment dated 8.10.2007 by increasing the rent.

It is well settled that a High Court in Writ Petition cannot

interfere with the finding of fact, regarding bonafide need.

We are also of the opinion that under Section 21, there is no

question of enhancement of rent. That may be done under some other

provision of the Act.

Accordingly, we dispose of this appeal with the direction that the

impugned Judgment is set aside and Judgment of First Appellate Court

rejecting the Petition under Section 21 is upheld. The direction

increasing rent is set aside.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1073 OF 2009

This Appeal has been filed against the impugned Judgment dated

8.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Allahabad.

The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence we

are not repeating the same here.

-3-

Under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings Act, 1972, the

prescribed authority can either allow the Petition for eviction of the

tenant or it can refuse to do so. It cannot enhance the rent under

those proceedings. Hence, we set aside the impugned Judgment of the

High Court.

The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.

..........................J. (MARKANDEY KATJU)

..........................J. (GYAN SUDHA MISRA)

NEW DELHI FEBRUARY 23, 2011.