Pushpa Sah Others v. Mohan Chandra Joshi

17 of 2012 and the learned First Additional District Judge, Nainital in Rent Control Appeal No. 17 of 2016. Both courts allowed the Respondent's application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, directing the Petitioners to hand over possession of the premises described as a “Goth” situated in House No. 85, Bara Bazar, Mallital, Nainital.

2. The Respondent-landlord, Shri Mohan Chandra Joshi, filed the release application on the strength of a registered sale deed dated 04.07.2007, claiming ownership and asserting a bona fide requirement for residential purposes. It was pleaded that the basement portion was necessary for accommodating his son and family, who were residing separately on rented premises due to inadequate space in the existing accommodation.

3. The original tenant, Late Shri Narendra Lal Sah, refuted the claim, stating that the premises in question formed part of House No. 83, not WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 136 OF 2020 ---------Pushpa Sah & Others v. Mohan Chandra Joshi 1 Ashish Naithani J. House No. 85, and had been used as a godown for his shop since before

1947. He contended that the premises were commercial in nature, unfit for habitation, and were essential for his ongoing business.

4. Upon the original tenant's demise during the appeal's pendency, the present Petitioners were brought on record. Their case is that the property was wrongly identified, the landlord failed to establish bona fide need, and the courts below did not appreciate the comparative hardship that eviction would impose upon the tenants.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. Learned counsel Mr. T.P.S. Takuli appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that the Respondent had failed to serve the mandatory six-month notice under Section 21(1)(a), a legal requirement essential for initiating proceedings.

7. He further argued that the property in question is actually a part of House No. 83, over which the Respondent has no ownership or title. According to him, the Respondent's claim to the property is unfounded.

8. Additionally, he submitted the premises serve as a commercial godown and are structurally unsuitable for residential use. The building lacks adequate light, ventilation, and essential features required for habitation.

9. Mr. T.P.S. Takuli also pointed out that the Respondent’s claim of genuine need was not sustainable, as his son, Ravi Joshi, had already purchased a residential house in 2013, negating the necessity claimed in the application.

10. He emphasized that the Respondent’s brother, a joint property purchaser, was not made a party to the release proceedings. According to the WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 136 OF 2020 ---------Pushpa Sah & Others v. Mohan Chandra Joshi 2 Ashish Naithani J. Petitioners, this omission renders the proceedings defective due to non- joinder of a necessary party.

11. Lastly, he contended that the Petitioners have no alternative space for their godown, and eviction would impose a significantly greater hardship on them than the landlord.

12. In response, the learned counsel, Mr. I.P. Gairola, appearing on behalf of the Respondent, argued that the tenant, Late Narendra Lal Sah, had himself acknowledged the Respondent’s ownership of House No. 85 in a letter dated 09.09.2009 and agreed to pay rent for the basement portion.

13. He further submitted that municipal records confirm basement as part of House No. 85. According to him, the Petitioners failed to produce any credible evidence to support their assertion that the property belongs to House No. 83.

14. Mr. I.P. Gairola asserted that the Respondent’s requirement for the premises was genuine, stemming lack of adequate accommodation for his joint family.

15. He also stated that both the trial and appellate courts had adequately considered the question of comparative hardship. The Petitioners, he argued, made no meaningful effort to secure alternative storage facilities despite having ample time to do so.

16. Finally, he maintained that the sale deed, mutation entry, and family arrangement collectively establish the Respondent as the rightful landlord, both de facto and de jure, and that any objections based on co- ownership are misplaced and lack legal substance.

17. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court is mindful that the scope of interference under Article 227 WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 136 OF 2020 ---------Pushpa Sah & Others v. Mohan Chandra Joshi 3 Ashish Naithani J. is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors and perversities in findings, as held in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675.

18. On the first issue of premises identification, the trial and appellate courts have concurrently held that the “Goth” in question forms part of House No. 85, based on the sale deed dated 04.07.2007 and the tenant’s letter dated 09.09.2009. The Petitioners have presented no credible document to dislodge this finding. The reliance on the structural features or usage pattern is insufficient to override the registered documentary title.

19. On the question of notice, the registered communication sent on

02.09.2009 and acknowledged on 09.09.2009 was treated by the Courts below as adequate compliance. This Court sees no reason to interfere, especially since the Petitioners admitted tenancy and paid rent thereafter.

20. The argument regarding co-ownership is legally untenable. In the absence of any contestation or rival claim from the brother, and in light of the municipal mutation in the Respondent’s favour, the plea of non-joinder is rejected. It is well-settled, as held in K.K. Verma v. Union of India, AIR 1954 Bom 358, that one co-owner can sue to evict a tenant.

21. Regarding the bona fide requirement, the Respondent has shown that his son and family live separately in rented premises, and that his family space is insufficient. The lower courts have rightly accepted the plea of genuine need. The Petitioners, however, failed to show they explored alternative premises for storage. It is a settled position, as affirmed in Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, (1999) 6 SCC 222, that mere availability of other accommodation to a family member does not preclude a landlord from asserting his need for better accommodation.

22. The contention that the premises were structurally unfit for residence also cannot be accepted. The suitability of premises for habitation WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 136 OF 2020 ---------Pushpa Sah & Others v. Mohan Chandra Joshi 4 Ashish Naithani J. is primarily a matter for the landlord to decide, unless it can be shown that the structure is condemned or otherwise uninhabitable, which is not the case here.

23. Regarding comparative hardship, the Respondent’s claim is rooted in family necessity and supported by credible evidence. Despite being in business for decades, the Petitioners have not demonstrated the unavailability of other storage space or commercial premises in Nainital. The balance clearly tilts in favour of the landlord. The law does not permit tenants to indefinitely retain possession of rented premises to the prejudice of a landlord’s genuine residential need, as held in Rahabhar Productions Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajendra K. Tandon, (1998) 8 SCC 208.

24. Accordingly, no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error is made out in the concurrent findings. ORDER The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. The judgments dated 25.10.2016 and 02.12.2019 passed by the learned Prescribed Authority and learned First Additional District Judge are hereby upheld. No order as to costs. Dt: 18.06.2025 SB ___________________ ASHISH NAITHANI, J. WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 136 OF 2020 ---------Pushpa Sah & Others v. Mohan Chandra Joshi 5 Ashish Naithani J.