M/s Babu Ram Jagdish Prasad and another v. Smt. Shail Nagalia and others

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 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. 1 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 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. 2 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.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 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 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. 3 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. 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. 4

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 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. 5 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. 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. 6

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. 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. 7

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 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. 8 (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. Arti 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 (Ashish Naithani J.) 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. 9