Ramesh Chandra Bhandari vs Ram Singh Salal

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)

JUDGMENT

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, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHOK RAJ SINGH Date: 2016.02.02 10:05:43 IST Reason: DSC of Sh. Ashok Raj SIngh is being used by

need mention in brief to appreciate the short controversy Sh. Deepak Mansukhani

1 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.

2

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

3 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

4 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

5 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

6 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

7 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

8 CORRECTED COPY ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.5 SECTION X

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 21/2016

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 31/08/2015 in WP No. 1696/2012 passed by the High Court Of Uttarakhand At Nainital)

RAMESH CHANDRA BHANDARI Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

RAM SINGH SALAL Respondent(s)

(with appln. (s) for exemption from filing O.T. and office report)

Date : 18/01/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Abhishek Anand Rai, Adv.

Ms. Divya Pandey, Adv.

Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Manoj Swarup, Adv.

Ms. Lalita Kohli, Adv.

Mr. Abhishek Swarup, Adv.

Ms. Charu Singhal, Adv.

M/s Manoj Swarup & Co., AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.

The appeal succeeds and is allowed in part in terms of the signed reportable judgment.

Cost of appeal is quantified at Rs. 10,000/- to be payable by the respondent to the appellant.

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (INDU BALA KAPUR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)

9 ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.5 SECTION X

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 21/2016

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 31/08/2015 in WP No. 1696/2012 passed by the High Court Of Uttarakhand At Nainital)

RAMESH CHANDRA BHANDARI Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

RAM SINGH SALAL Respondent(s)

(with appln. (s) for exemption from filing O.T. and office report)

Date : 18/01/2016 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

For Petitioner(s) Dr. Sushil Balwada,Adv.

Mr. Abhishek Anand Rai, Adv.

Ms. Divya Pandey, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Manoj Swarup, Adv.

Ms. Lalita Kohli, Adv.

Mr. Abhishek Swarup, Adv.

Ms. Charu Singhal, Adv.

M/s Manoj Swarup & Co.,Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.

The appeal succeeds and is allowed in part in terms of the signed reportable judgment.

Cost of appeal is quantified at Rs. 10,000/- to be payable by the respondent to the appellant.

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (INDU BALA KAPUR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)

10