Udaibhan vs Jaydev Chatarjee And 7 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 4371 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Udaibhan vs Jaydev Chatarjee And 7 Others on 11 August, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135012
 
Court No. - 37
 

 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8781 of 2025
 

 
Petitioner :- Udaibhan
 
Respondent :- Jaydev Chatarjee And 7 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh,Rudra Pratap Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Rudra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashutosh, learned counsel for respondent no.1.

2. Brief facts of the case are that proceeding under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act No.13 of 1972") was initiated on behalf of the landlord-respondent no.1 which was registered as P.A. Case No.14 of 2017 with respect to the bonafide need of the landlord-respondent no.1 in respect to the accommodation in question. The petitioner-tenant filed objection in the aforesaid proceeding, stating that the need as set up by the landlord-respondent no.1 is not bonafide. Petitioner-tenant has also made averment in the objection that earlier release application filed on behalf of the landlord was dismissed, as such, on the same allegation, subsequent release application cannot be entertained. The Prescribed Authority has rejected the P.A. Case No.14 of 2017 on 8.11.2019, recording finding of fact that there is no bonafide need of the landlord, as such, proceeding under the Act No.13 of 1972 cannot be entertained. Landlord-respondent no.1 filed Rent Appeal No.13 of 2019 against the order dated 8.11.2019 passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Gorakhpur vide order dated 31.5.2025 set aside the order dated 8.11.2019 passed by the Prescribed Authority and directed the petitioner-tenant to vacate the premises within 3 months. Hence, this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 31.5.2025 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Gorakhpur in Rent Appeal No.13/2019 (Jaydev Chaterjee vs. Udaybhan and Others) (Annexure no.8 to this writ petition)."

3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier proceeding under the Act No.13 of 1972 initiated at the instance of landlord was dismissed and the order has attained finality, as such, subsequent proceeding initiated by the landlord-respondent no.1 cannot be entertained. He further submitted that the Prescribed Authority has rejected the proceeding under the Act No.13 of 1972 but the appeal filed by the landlord has been allowed in arbitrary manner without setting aside the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority. He submitted that the case set up by the landlord for bonafide need has been considered and disbelieved by the Prescribed Authority in proper manner but the appellate court has entered into the finding of fact recorded by the Prescribed Authority as such appellate order can not be sustained. He submitted that the appellate order dated 31.5.2025 should be set aside and the order dated 8.11.2019 passed by the Prescribed Authority should be maintained.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the landlord-respondent no.1 submitted that the instant proceeding under the Act No.13/1972 was initiated according to the provisions contained under Rule 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972, as such, there is no illegality in initiation of the subsequent proceeding under the Act No.13 of 1972. He submitted that the Prescribed Authority has not properly considered the bonafide need and the comparative hardship of the landlord but the appellate court has properly exercised the jurisdiction in considering the bonafide need of the landlord which requires no interference.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. There is no dispute about the fact that proceeding initiated at the instance of landlord under the Act No.13 of 1972 was dismissed by the Prescribed Authority but in appeal the order of prescribed authority has been set aside and the petitioner-tenant was directed to vacate the premises.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of the points of determination framed by the appellate court will be relevant which are as under:-

?? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ?????????? ???????? ?????? ??????? ???? ???? ???:-

01. ???? ??????????? ??? ????????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ??? ????????? ?? ????? ??????? ???

02. ???? ????????? ?? ????????? ?? ?????????? ???? ??? ?? ?????????? ???? ???????? ???????? ?? ??? ????????? ?????? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ???

03. ???? ??????? ???? ?????????? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ??????/???????? ?? ???????? ???

8. Perusal of Rules 16(1) (c) and 18(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 will also be relevant which are as under:--

16. Application for release on the ground of personal requirement:-

(1) (c) Where the tenant has, apart from the building under tenancy, other adequate accommodation, whether owned by him or held as tenant of any public premises, having regard to the number of members of his family and their respective ages and his social status, the landlord's claim for additional requirements shall be construed liberally;

18. Avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings:-

(1)...

(2) Where an application of a landlord against a tenant under Section 21 for the release of any building or any specified part thereof or any surplus land appurtenant to such building is rejected on merits and a fresh application on the same ground is made within a period of one year from that decision, the Prescribed Authority shall accept the findings in those proceedings as conclusive.

9. The appellate court after considering the provisions contained under Rules 16 & 18 has recorded finding of fact that the need of landlord is bonafide & genuine and comparative hardship is also in favour of the landlord, as such, proceeding under the Act No.13 of 1972, initiated by the landlord should be allowed. The appellate court has rightly exercised the appellate jurisdiction considering the evidence of both the parties as well as the ratio of law laid down by Hon?ble Apex Court and this Court on the question of bonafide need and comparative hardship of the landlord.

10. This Court in the case reported in 2000(1) ARC 328, Jagdish Prasad vs. 1st Additional District Judge, Mathura and Others has held that release application filed after expiry of period prescribed under Rule 18(2) of 1972 Rules will be considered on merit. The relevant paragraph of the judgment rendered in Jagdish Prasad (supra) are under:-

"7. In the matter of need as well as hardship, the time is very important factor. The changes occur each day and each month. It is on this principle Rule 18 was framed which provides that where an application of the landlord against the tenant for eviction filed under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act has been finally allowed or rejected on merits, if second application is filed within a period of six months, the Prescribed Authority shall accept the findings in those proceedings as conclusive. This Rule engrafted the principle of res judicata for a fixed period because after some period, the changes may itself occur."

11. This Court in the case reported in 2001(1) RCR (Rent) 687, Ashok Kersarwani vs. Lalta Prasad has held that need of landlord shall not be refused on the ground that tenant has no alternative accommodation. Paragraph No.12 of the judgment rendered in Ashok Kesarwanti (supra) will be relevant for perusal which is as under:-

"12.The appellate authority had also considered the comparative hardships of the parties. The contention of the tenant was that he has no alternative accommodation to shift his business, but on this ground, the hardships of tenant cannot be said greater than that of landlord, as It was held by the Apex Court in the case of Gega Begum v. Abdul Ahad 1986 SCFBRC 346, that if requirement for the house was found to be bona fide and genuine, then the landlord cannot be denied the eviction simply because the tenant had no alternative accommodation available. The tenant always suffers some sort of hardship on eviction, but that does not mean that he cannot be evicted even ff the landlord genuinely and bona fide required the premises. In this way, there is no ground to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the appellate authority on bona fide need of the landlord and comparative hardship."

12. Considering the entire facts and circumstances as well as ratio of law laid down by this court in Jagdish Prasad (supra) and Ashok Kesarwani (supra), no interference is required against the impugned order dated 31.5.2025, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Gorakhpur in Rent Appeal No.13/2019.

13. The petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is dismissed accordingly.

Order Date :- 11.8.2025

C.Prakash