Smt. Sunita Sah & Others ... vs Sri Anup Singh Sahi on 12 December, 2025

2025:UHC:11104

Judgement Pronounced on:12.12.2025
Judgement Reserved on: 03.12.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No 1557 of 2024

Smt. Sunita Sah & others ......Petitioners

Versus

Sri Anup Singh Sahi .....Respondent

Presence:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Pankaj Singh Chauhan, learned counsel
For the Respondent: Mr. Tarun Prakash Singh Takuli, learned counsel

Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. The Petitioners, who are the landlords of shop no. 74, Agra Misthan
Bhandar, situated in Bara Bazar, Mallital, Nainital, have invoked the
supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, challenging the judgment dated 22.04.2024
passed by the learned District Judge, Nainital, in Rent Control Appeal
No. 21 of 2023. By the impugned judgment, the appellate court set
aside the order dated 16.10.2023 passed by the Prescribed
Authority/Civil Judge (S.D.), Nainital in Rent Control Case No. 04 of
2021, whereby the release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act,
1972 had been allowed.

2. The appellate court reversed the decree solely on the ground that the
Act itself was inapplicable as the contractual rent of the premises was

1
Writ Petition (M/S) No 1557/2024-----Smt. Sunita Sah & others vs Sri Anup Singh Sahi
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11104

allegedly beyond the statutory threshold, thereby holding that the
Prescribed Authority lacked jurisdiction.

3. The respondent is a long-standing tenant running a sweets shop under
the name "Agra Misthan Bhandar." The landlords filed a release
application on 10.02.2021, asserting bona fide need to establish their
two unemployed sons in business and stating that no other suitable
commercial accommodation was available to them.

4. In response, the tenant denied the applicability of the Act and alleged
that the landlords wanted to increase the rent from ₹ 2,500 to ₹ 20,000
per month. Relying solely on a single bank transfer of ₹ 30,000, he
claimed that the contractual rent was ₹ 2,500 per month. Still, he
produced no rent deed, rent receipt, or consistent record of payment to
substantiate this claim or to establish any statutory exemption.

5. The Prescribed Authority found that the tenant had failed to prove the
alleged rent and that the solitary bank transfer could not be treated as
proof of a contractual rate. It noted the complete absence of
documentary material supporting the tenant's stand and accepted the
municipal assessment records filed by the landlady. It therefore held
that the tenant had not discharged the burden of showing that the Act
was inapplicable and, on evaluating the remaining evidence, recorded
findings of bona fide need and comparative hardship in favour of the
landlords.

6. The appellate court, however, allowed the tenant's appeal solely on the
ground that the Act did not apply, holding that the landlords had failed
to prove the rate of rent. While acknowledging that the tenant's
evidence was "not final," it nevertheless accepted it as sufficient to oust

2
Writ Petition (M/S) No 1557/2024-----Smt. Sunita Sah & others vs Sri Anup Singh Sahi
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11104

the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority. The appellate court failed
to consider that the burden of proving exemption lay on the tenant,
ignored the municipal records produced by the landlords, and did not
examine the detailed findings on bona fide requirement and
comparative hardship.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

8. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the appellate court
erred in setting aside the well-reasoned order of the Prescribed
Authority solely on the issue of applicability of the Act. It was argued
that the landlords had clearly pleaded that the Act applied, whereas the
tenant failed to plead or prove any foundational facts to show that the
contractual rent was above the statutory threshold. The tenant relied
only on a single bank transfer of ₹ 30,000 without any proof that it
represented rent. Counsel submitted that the burden to establish
exemption from the Act lay on the tenant, who asserted such
exemption, and that the appellate court wrongly shifted this burden
onto the landlords.

9. It was further argued that the appellate court ignored the municipal
assessment record filed along with the landlady's affidavit, which
supported the landlords' case. It was submitted that the Prescribed
Authority had correctly assessed the evidence, found the plea of higher
rent unproved, and thereafter recorded proper findings on bona fide
need and comparative hardship. These findings, it was urged, were
supported by the material on record and were not examined at all by the
appellate court.
10. In reply, learned counsel for the Respondent supported the
appellate judgment and contended that the bank transfer of ₹ 30,000

3
Writ Petition (M/S) No 1557/2024-----Smt. Sunita Sah & others vs Sri Anup Singh Sahi
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11104

showed that the rent was ₹ 2,500 per month, taking the premises
outside the purview of the Act. Counsel submitted that the landlords,
who asserted applicability of the Act, failed to prove the actual rent,
and therefore the appellate court correctly held that the Prescribed
Authority lacked jurisdiction. It was further argued that once
jurisdiction was found lacking, the appellate court was not required to
examine the merits of bona fide need or comparative hardship. Counsel
also suggested that eviction would cause serious hardship to the tenant,
who had been running his business from the shop for many years.

11. This Court finds that the appellate court materially erred in
reversing the burden of proof. Since the landlords pleaded applicability
of the Act, and the tenant asserted a special defence that the rent
exceeded the statutory ceiling, the burden unquestionably lay on the
tenant to plead and prove the jurisdictional facts necessary to exclude
the premises from the protection of the Act. The tenant did not
discharge that burden. A single bank transfer without indication of the
nature or period of payment cannot establish a contractual rate of rent,
much less a rate sufficient to oust the statute. The appellate court's
acceptance of such insufficient material while disregarding the
landlords' evidence amounts to a perverse and selective appreciation of
evidence.

12. This Court also finds that the appellate court failed in its duty as a
first appellate court by not considering the well-reasoned findings of
the Prescribed Authority on bona fide requirement and comparative
hardship. The Prescribed Authority had found, on evidence, that the
landlady was nearing retirement, her sons were unemployed and
intended to start a business in the very premises owned by the family,
and that no other suitable premises were available. It also found that the

4
Writ Petition (M/S) No 1557/2024-----Smt. Sunita Sah & others vs Sri Anup Singh Sahi
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11104

tenant was financially in a position to shift his business elsewhere with
less hardship than the landlords would suffer if the application was
rejected. These findings are not shown to be perverse or unsupported
by evidence and therefore warrant no interference.

13. In the totality of circumstances, the impugned judgment dated
22.04.2024, passed by the District Judge, suffers from errors of law,
misapplication of principles regarding burden of proof, improper
appreciation of evidence, and failure to consider the appeal on its true
merits. The error goes to the root of jurisdiction and calls for
interference under Article 227.
ORDER

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The judgment dated 22.04.2024 passed by the District Judge, Nainital, in Rent Control Appeal No. 21 of 2023 is set aside, and the judgment dated 16.10.2023 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (S.D.), Nainital, allowing the release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act is restored.

To balance equities, the respondent-tenant is granted six months' time to vacate the premises, subject to his filing, within four weeks, an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority that he shall hand over peaceful and vacant possession within the aforesaid period and shall not induct any third party.

The tenant shall clear all arrears of rent within two months and shall continue to pay the last admitted rent by the 7th day of every month until delivery of possession.

In the event of default in filing the undertaking, or in payment of arrears or current rent, the benefit of time shall stand withdrawn

Writ Petition (M/S) No 1557/2024-----Smt. Sunita Sah & others vs Sri Anup Singh Sahi Ashish Naithani J.

2025:UHC:11104

automatically, and the Petitioners shall be entitled to proceed with execution forthwith.

There shall be no order as to costs.

(Ashish Naithani, J.)

Dated:12.12.2025 NR

Writ Petition (M/S) No 1557/2024-----Smt. Sunita Sah & others vs Sri Anup Singh Sahi Ashish Naithani J.