Uttarakhand High Court
M/S Babu Ram Jagdish Prasad And Another ... vs Smt. Shail Nagalia And Others on 18 September, 2025
2025:UHC:8360
Judgment Reserved on : 30.07.2025
Judgment Delivered on : 18.09.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No.1187 of 2022
M/s Babu Ram Jagdish Prasad and another ......Petitioners
Vs.
Smt. Shail Nagalia and others .....Respondents
Along with
Writ Petition (M/S) No.1188 of 2022
M/s Rati Ram Om Prakash and another ......Petitioners
Vs.
Smt. Shail Nagalia and others .....Respondents
Along with
Writ Petition (M/S) No.1189 of 2022
M/s Prakash Nath Ambrish Kumar and another ......Petitioners
Vs.
Smt. Shail Nagalia and others .....Respondents
Presence: Mr. T.S. Bindra (through V.C.) and Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the
petitioners.
Mr. Neeraj Garg and Mr. Himanshu Pal, learned counsel for the Respondents.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. The present three writ petitions have been instituted under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the concurrent orders passed by
the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority in proceedings under
Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent
and Eviction) Act, 1972. Since the issues involved in all three petitions
1
WRIT PETITION (M/S) NOs. 1187/2022M/s Babu Ram Jagdish Prasad and Anotherversus
Smt. Shail Nagalia and others with WRIT PETITION (M/S) NOs. 1188/2022M/s Rati Ram Om
Prakash and others versusSmt. Shail Nagalia and others withWRIT PETITION (M/S) NOs.
1189/2022M/s Babu Ram Jagdish Prasad and AnotherversusSmt. Shail Nagalia and others
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:8360
arise out of common facts and relate to the same property, and the
impugned orders are interconnected, they are being considered and
disposed of together by this common judgment and order.
2. The petitioners are tenants of different shop premises situated in
Dehradun, whereas Respondent no. 1 is the landlady of the said premises.
The landlady instituted proceedings under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P.
Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972,
seeking release of the tenanted shops for her bona fide requirement.
3. The Prescribed Authority, by order dated 04.03.2017, allowed the
release application. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioners preferred Rent
Control Appeal No. 6 of 2017, which was dismissed by the 2ndAdditional
District Judge, Dehradun, on 16.04.2022. These concurrent orders are
assailed in the present writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India.
4. On 07.06.2022, this Court, while issuing notice, granted interim
protection to the Petitioners against dispossession, subject to payment of
use and occupation charges at the rate of ₹10,000/- per month in WPMS
Nos. 1187 and 1188 of 2022, and ₹15,000/- per month in WPMS No. 1189
of 2022. Payments were directed to be made on or before the seventh day
of each succeeding month. Later, considering the difficulty expressed by
the Petitioners in tendering rent directly, this Court permitted a deposit
before the Prescribed Authority. On applications moved by the landlady,
such deposits were allowed to be withdrawn by order dated 18.08.2023.
5. During the pendency of the writ petitions, counter-affidavits,
rejoinders, and supplementary affidavits were exchanged. The matters
2
WRIT PETITION (M/S) NOs. 1187/2022M/s Babu Ram Jagdish Prasad and Anotherversus
Smt. Shail Nagalia and others with WRIT PETITION (M/S) NOs. 1188/2022M/s Rati Ram Om
Prakash and others versusSmt. Shail Nagalia and others withWRIT PETITION (M/S) NOs.
1189/2022M/s Babu Ram Jagdish Prasad and AnotherversusSmt. Shail Nagalia and others
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:8360
were adjourned on multiple occasions due to requests of counsel, recusal
by certain Benches, and roster changes. Interim orders dated 07.06.2022
were, however, extended from time to time and continued to remain
operative until the final hearing.
6. On 17.05.2024, the rejoinder and supplementary affidavits were
taken on record, and the cases were directed to be listed along with
connected matters. On 30.07.2025, arguments were concluded, and
judgment was reserved.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
8. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the impugned
orders dated 04.03.2017, passed by the Prescribed Authority, and
16.04.2022, passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Dehradun, are
unsustainable in law and on facts. It was urged that the authorities below
have failed to appreciate the material placed on record in its correct
perspective.
9. It was contended that the Petitioners have been carrying on their
business from the tenanted shops for several years and their livelihood
depends entirely upon such business. According to the learned counselfor
the Petitioners, the comparative hardship has not been adequately
assessed, and the need projected by the landlady is neither bona fide nor
pressing.
10. It was further submitted that the Petitioners have complied with
all interim directions issued by this Court, including regular payment of
use and occupation charges at the rate fixed by the Court, and no default
has been committed on their part. On this basis, learned counsel argued
3
WRIT PETITION (M/S) NOs. 1187/2022M/s Babu Ram Jagdish Prasad and Anotherversus
Smt. Shail Nagalia and others with WRIT PETITION (M/S) NOs. 1188/2022M/s Rati Ram Om
Prakash and others versusSmt. Shail Nagalia and others withWRIT PETITION (M/S) NOs.
1189/2022M/s Babu Ram Jagdish Prasad and AnotherversusSmt. Shail Nagalia and others
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:8360
that equity also lies in favour of the Petitioners and they deserve to be
protected from eviction.
11. Learned counsel for the Petitionersalso pointed out that the
landlady has alternative accommodation available, and therefore, the
requirement set up by her cannot be accepted as genuine. It was contended
that both the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority failed to
properly consider this aspect, which vitiates the findings recorded in the
impugned orders.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent no. 1 supported the
orders passed by the Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate
Authority. It was argued that both the courts below have concurrently held
the need of the landlady to be bona fide, and such concurrent findings
ought not to be interfered with in proceedings under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
13. It was submitted that the landlady is aged and has consistently
pursued the release proceedings since 2012. Learned counsel for the
Respondent argued that the delay in final adjudication has caused grave
prejudice to her, and the interim protection in favour of the Petitioners has
continued for an unduly long period.
14. Learned counsel for the Respondent further contended that the
Petitioners' plea of comparative hardship is misconceived. According to
the Respondents, the Petitioners are financially well established and
capable of arranging alternative premises for their business. In contrast,
the landlady has no other suitable accommodation for her personal
requirements.
4
WRIT PETITION (M/S) NOs. 1187/2022M/s Babu Ram Jagdish Prasad and Anotherversus
Smt. Shail Nagalia and others with WRIT PETITION (M/S) NOs. 1188/2022M/s Rati Ram Om
Prakash and others versusSmt. Shail Nagalia and others withWRIT PETITION (M/S) NOs.
1189/2022M/s Babu Ram Jagdish Prasad and AnotherversusSmt. Shail Nagalia and others
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:8360
15. It was lastly submitted that the writ jurisdiction of this Court is
limited, and interference with concurrent findings of fact should be
exercised only in cases of patent perversity or gross illegality, which is not
demonstrated in the present case. The Respondents, therefore, prayed for
dismissal of the writ petitions.
16. At the outset, it is necessary to recall the scope of supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227. The jurisdiction is neither appellate nor
intended to enable re-examination of findings of fact. Interference is
warranted only where the subordinate authority has acted without
jurisdiction, committed a manifest error of law, misapplied settled legal
principles, or ignored material evidence.
17. The central questions arising are: (i) whether the landlady has
established a bona fide need for the premises, and (ii) whether
comparative hardship weighs in favour of the landlord or the tenants.
18. On the first question, both the Prescribed Authority and the
Appellate Authority have concurrently recorded that the need of the
landlady is bona fide. The principle that a landlord is ordinarily the best
judge of how property should be utilised has been consistently recognised
by courts, subject to the caveat that the requirement must be genuine and
not a pretext. The Petitioners have not established that the authorities
ignored any material evidence or considered extraneous factors in arriving
at their conclusion.
19. The Petitioners sought to resist eviction by contending that the
landlady has other accommodation. The authorities below examined this
5
WRIT PETITION (M/S) NOs. 1187/2022M/s Babu Ram Jagdish Prasad and Anotherversus
Smt. Shail Nagalia and others with WRIT PETITION (M/S) NOs. 1188/2022M/s Rati Ram Om
Prakash and others versusSmt. Shail Nagalia and others withWRIT PETITION (M/S) NOs.
1189/2022M/s Babu Ram Jagdish Prasad and AnotherversusSmt. Shail Nagalia and others
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:8360
plea and found that the premises referred to were not suitable or sufficient
to meet the projected need. The law is clear that the mere existence of
some other property does not automatically disentitle a landlord. What
matters is whether such property is adequate, suitable, and reasonably
available for the purpose for which release is sought. This burden was
upon the Petitioners, and it has not been discharged.
20. On the second question of comparative hardship, Rule 16 framed
under the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 Rules obliges the authority to weigh the
respective detriment. Relevant considerations include the length of
tenancy, the nature of business, the financial position of the parties, and
the feasibility of securing alternative accommodation. In contrast, the
landlady has no other suitable property and would be unable to meet her
requirement without release. These findings are based on an appreciation
of evidence and cannot be characterised as perverse.
21. The Petitioners' reliance on their compliance with interim
directions is also misplaced. Payment of use and occupation charges was a
condition for interim protection; it does not create an independent equity
or dilute the rights of the landlord once bona fide requirement and
comparative hardship have been adjudicated in her favour. Interim
arrangements necessarily merge in the final determination.
22. It is also evident that the proceedings have been pending for an
inordinately long time. The release application was instituted in 2012,
decided by the Prescribed Authority in 2017, affirmed by the Appellate
Court in 2022, and has since remained pending in writ jurisdiction. Delay
by itself cannot confer a right upon the tenants or operate to defeat a
lawful adjudication in favour of the landlord.
6
WRIT PETITION (M/S) NOs. 1187/2022M/s Babu Ram Jagdish Prasad and Anotherversus
Smt. Shail Nagalia and others with WRIT PETITION (M/S) NOs. 1188/2022M/s Rati Ram Om
Prakash and others versusSmt. Shail Nagalia and others withWRIT PETITION (M/S) NOs.
1189/2022M/s Babu Ram Jagdish Prasad and AnotherversusSmt. Shail Nagalia and others
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:8360
23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan,
(1996) 5 SCC 353, observed that unless the need set up by the landlord is
shown to be a mere pretext, the Court must ordinarily accept it as genuine.
The Hon'ble court also observed that -
"(16) The landlord was also required to prove that she
bonafide required the premises in dispute. The word
'bonafide' in the context means in good faith not for sham
or colourable purpose invented for the purpose of evicting
the tenant. It must be honest in fact and circumstances. 'The
word "required" means that the premises are needed by
landlord. There must be an element of need and not mere
desire."
24. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Pass Vs. Ishwar
Chander and Ors - AIR 1988 SC 1422 this Court has held that:-
" the need of the landlord should be genuine and honest,
conceived in good faith; and that, further, the court must
also consider it reasonable to gratify that need. Landlord's
desire for possession, however honest it might otherwise
be, has inevitably a subjective element in it and that, that
desire to become a "requirement" in law must have the
objective element of a "need". It must also be such that the
court considers it reasonable and, therefore, eligible to be
gratified. In doing so, the court must take all relevant
circumstances into consideration so that the protection
afforded by law to the tenant is not rendered merely
illusory or whittled down".
25. The Court clarified that a bona fide requirement is one that is
honest, sincere, and conceived in good faith, and cannot be equated with a
mere whim or fanciful desire. Tested on these parameters, the finding of
bona fide need returned by the Prescribed Authority and affirmed by the
Appellate Court cannot be said to suffer from perversity or misdirection.
7
WRIT PETITION (M/S) NOs. 1187/2022M/s Babu Ram Jagdish Prasad and Anotherversus
Smt. Shail Nagalia and others with WRIT PETITION (M/S) NOs. 1188/2022M/s Rati Ram Om
Prakash and others versusSmt. Shail Nagalia and others withWRIT PETITION (M/S) NOs.
1189/2022M/s Babu Ram Jagdish Prasad and AnotherversusSmt. Shail Nagalia and others
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:8360
26. On an overall consideration, this Court is satisfied that the
findings of the Prescribed and Appellate Authorities are reasoned and
consistent with the statutory framework. No jurisdictional error,
perversity, or misapplication of law has been demonstrated. The
submissions advanced on behalf of the Petitioners essentially invite
reppreciation of evidence, which is impermissible under Article 227.
ORDER
In view of the foregoing discussion, all three writ petitions, namely
WPMS No. 1187 of 2022, WPMS No. 1188 of 2022, and WPMS No. 1189 of
2022, fail and are hereby dismissed.
(a) However, considering that the Petitioners have been
conducting business from the premises for a considerable
period of time, and that sudden eviction may cause undue
hardship and dislocation, they are granted six months' time
from today to vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the
tenanted shops to Respondent No. 1, subject to the following
conditions:
(b)The Petitioners shall continue to pay use and occupation
charges at the rate fixed by this Court (₹10,000/- per month in
WPMS Nos. 1187 and 1188 of 2022, and ₹15,000/- per month
in WPMS No. 1189 of 2022) on or before the 7th day of each
succeeding month until delivery of possession.
(c) The Petitioners shall file an undertaking before the Prescribed
Authority within four weeks, undertaking to vacate and hand
over possession of the respective premises to the landlady on
or before the expiry of six months.
WRIT PETITION (M/S) NOs. 1187/2022M/s Babu Ram Jagdish Prasad and Anotherversus
Smt. Shail Nagalia and others with WRIT PETITION (M/S) NOs. 1188/2022M/s Rati Ram Om
Prakash and others versusSmt. Shail Nagalia and others withWRIT PETITION (M/S) NOs.
1189/2022M/s Babu Ram Jagdish Prasad and AnotherversusSmt. Shail Nagalia and others
Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:8360
(d)In case of default in payment of use and occupation charges or
in filing of the undertaking, the benefit of time shall stand
withdrawn automatically, and the landlady shall be entitled to
enforce the orders of eviction forthwith.
Interim orders granted by this Court on 07.06.2022 and extended
thereafter shall stand merged in this final order.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Ashish Naithani J.)
Arti
ARTI SINGH Digitally signed by ARTI SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F982, cn=ARTI SINGH
Date: 2025.09.18 17:54:23 +05'30'
18.09.2025
WRIT PETITION (M/S) NOs. 1187/2022M/s Babu Ram Jagdish Prasad and Anotherversus
Smt. Shail Nagalia and others with WRIT PETITION (M/S) NOs. 1188/2022M/s Rati Ram Om
Prakash and others versusSmt. Shail Nagalia and others withWRIT PETITION (M/S) NOs.
1189/2022M/s Babu Ram Jagdish Prasad and AnotherversusSmt. Shail Nagalia and others
Ashish Naithani J.
