Manish Gupta v. Kewal Ratan and Another

Judgment

1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been instituted by the Petitioner, who is the landlord of a tenanted shop situated in Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. The challenge is directed against the order dated 26.05.2022 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (J.D.), Kashipur in Rent Control Case No. 06 of 2019, Manish Gupta v. Kewal Ratan and Another, and the

judgment dated 24.11.2022 passed by the learned First Additional District Judge, Kashipur in Rent Control Appeal No. 2 of 2022, whereby the release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) WPMS No. 3262 of 2022 Manish Gupta vs. Kewal Ratan and Another 1 Ashish Naithani J. Act, 1972, has been rejected and the Appellate court has affirmed the said rejection.

2. The Petitioner, as landlord, sought release of the tenanted shop for the bona fide and genuine need of his daughter, Ms. Mohini Gupta, who intended to start an independent boutique business. It was stated that the Petitioner had no other vacant shop suitable for such purpose and that the need was both real and pressing.

3. The Respondents, tenants since 1975, filed objections denying the genuineness of the need. They contended that the daughter of the Petitioner was still pursuing her studies and that the Petitioner owned several other shops and premises, including a three-storied commercial building in the main market and other tenancies on Ratan Cinema Road. The tenants alleged that the Petitioner’s intent was only to enhance rent and that the plea of bona fide requirement was pretextual.

4. The Prescribed Authority, after evaluating the evidence, held that the need was not bona fide since Ms. Mohini Gupta was studying in a regular B.A. course and had not yet commenced any business activity. It further held that alternate accommodation was available with the landlord and that eviction would cause greater hardship to the tenants.

5. The landlord preferred Rent Control Appeal No. 2 of 2022, contending that the Authority had failed to appreciate the material on record in its proper perspective and had overlooked the subsequent completion of the daughter’s education. It was submitted that the additional evidence, including her degree from Graphic Era University, established that the need was genuine and continuing. WPMS No. 3262 of 2022 Manish Gupta vs. Kewal Ratan and Another 2 Ashish Naithani J.

6. The Appellate Court, while dismissing the appeal, held that the availability of alternative shops weakened the landlord’s claim. It concluded that there existed four shops on the first floor of the Petitioner’s complex, one of which was vacant, and that the daughter could conveniently use the said premises for her proposed boutique.

7. The Appellate court thus upheld the Prescribed Authority’s finding and dismissed the appeal on 24.11.2022.

8. Aggrieved by these concurrent findings, the Petitioner has approached this Court invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, alleging that both courts below acted perversely, ignored the concept of bona fide need as judicially interpreted, and based their decisions on conjecture rather than evidence.

9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, Shri Siddhartha Singh, submitted that both the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Court failed to appreciate the legal principles governing Section 21(1)(a) of the Act of 1972. It was argued that the “bona fide need” of a landlord is to be considered in light of the genuine desire of the landlord or any adult member of his family to start an independent business, and that the law does not require proof of immediate readiness or prior experience.

10. It was submitted that the daughter, for whose benefit the release was sought, has since completed her B.A. (Hons.) and now intends to establish a boutique of her own. The subsequent development, even if occurring during the pendency of the appeal, should have been taken into consideration as the need continued and matured with time. WPMS No. 3262 of 2022 Manish Gupta vs. Kewal Ratan and Another 3 Ashish Naithani J.

11. Learned counsel further argued that the finding regarding the availability of alternate shops is perverse and contrary to the record. The Respondents themselves had pleadedthe existence of only three shops on the first floor. In contrast, the Appellate Court, without any inspection or material evidence, presumed the existence of a fourth shop. The finding, therefore, is based on conjecture.

12. It was also urged that the courts below failed to consider the established principle of “Adult Member Theory,” as recognised by judicial precedent, which entitles every adult member of the family to engage in independent occupation or business, irrespective of other premises owned by the landlord.

13. The Petitioner had, in fact, offered an alternative accommodation to the tenants on the second floor of the same building, but the tenants refused to accept it. This conduct, it was argued, disentitles them from equitable protection under Section 21(1)(a).

14. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Arvind Vashistha, assisted by Shri Rachit Manglik, appearing for the Respondents, supported the impugned judgments. It was contended that both courts below have concurrently found against the Petitioner on appreciation of evidence, and this Court, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, cannot re- appreciate facts unless there is manifest perversity or jurisdictional error.

15. It was submitted the Petitioner owns multiple commercial premises, including a three-storied building where the ground floor is in occupation of M/s M. Kumar Saree & Apparels Pvt. Ltd. and the first floor contains at least three independent shops, one of WPMS No. 3262 of 2022 Manish Gupta vs. Kewal Ratan and Another 4 Ashish Naithani J. which has recently been let out to a tenant. The existence of such alternate premises demolishes the plea of bona fide need.

16. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that the daughter’s alleged requirement was speculative, as she was still pursuing her education at the time of filing and had no established plan or financial capacity to start a boutique. The Rent Control Act protects long- standing tenants against eviction sought on mere desire rather than genuine necessity.

17. It was lastly urged that both authorities below have given detailed and reasoned orders, balancing comparative hardship between the parties, and their concurrent findings call for no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.

18. Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents submitted that both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings against the petitioner after due appreciation of evidence, and such concurrent findings do not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

19. It was contended that at the time of filing of the release application, the petitioner’s daughter was admittedly pursuing her graduation and had not started any business activity.

20. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner owns several other commercial premises in the same locality, including multiple shops in his three-storied building on Ratan Cinema Road. The existence of such alternate accommodation, one of which was shown to be vacant, completely negates the alleged necessity of evicting the respondents from the tenanted shop. WPMS No. 3262 of 2022 Manish Gupta vs. Kewal Ratan and Another 5 Ashish Naithani J.

21. It was also argued that the comparative hardship has been rightly decided in favour of the tenants, who have been carrying on business from the said shop for several decades and derive their sole livelihood therefrom. In contrast, the petitioner is financially well-off and in possession of other commercial premises.

22. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, including the pleadings, affidavits, and orders of the courts below. The principal issue which arises for determination is whether the concurrent findings rejecting the landlord’s release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act of 1972 suffer from any perversity, misreading of evidence, or non-application of the settled legal principles governing bona fide requirement.

23. Section 21(1)(a) of the Act permits a landlord to seek release of a tenanted building if it is bona fide required by him for occupation by himself or by any member of his family. The expression “bona fide requirement” has been judicially interpreted to mean a need which is genuine, real, and pressing, and not a mere wish or desire.

24. In the present case, the petitioner sought release of the shop to enable his adult daughter, Ms. Mohini Gupta, to start a boutique business. The requirement of an adult family member to establish an independent occupation has been recognised as bona fide under what is commonly referred to as the “Adult Member Theory.” The need of the petitioner’s daughter cannot be discarded merely because she was pursuing higher studies at the time of filing. The subsequent completion of her education, evidenced by her degree produced before the Appellate court, reinforces continuity of the requirement rather than extinguishing it. WPMS No. 3262 of 2022 Manish Gupta vs. Kewal Ratan and Another 6 Ashish Naithani J.

25. The Prescribed Authority declined release primarily on the ground that the daughter was studying and incapable of establishing a business. Such reasoning, in the opinion of this Court, appears narrow and inconsistent with the principle that the landlord is the best judge of his own requirement. The law does not expect the landlord to await the culmination of every preparatory circumstance before asserting his bona fide need.

26. The Appellate Court, while affirming the rejection, proceeded to introduce a new factual inference that four shops existed on the first floor of the landlord’s complex, one being vacant. This finding was not pleaded by the tenants and was reached without any inspection or independent evidence. When the pleadings of the tenants themselves referred to only three shops on the first floor, the inference regarding a fourth vacant shop rests on speculation. Such a conjectural assumption materially affects the finding on the availability of alternate accommodation and borders on perversity.

27. The record further indicates that the petitioner had offered an alternative shop to the tenants on the second floor of the building. The tenants declined the offer without demonstrating that the proposed accommodation was wholly unsuitable. The comparative hardship, therefore, tilts marginally in favour of the landlord, since the tenants have been in occupation of a commercial shop for decades and possess their own residential premises containing a shop-front capable of use.

28. At the same time, this Court is conscious that interference under Article 227 is limited. Supervisory jurisdiction does not entail re- appreciation of evidence merely because a different view is possible. Interference is warranted only where findings are shown to be perverse or where vital material has been ignored. The two courts below have WPMS No. 3262 of 2022 Manish Gupta vs. Kewal Ratan and Another 7 Ashish Naithani J. discussed evidence in detail and have recorded concurrent conclusions, though certain assumptions, particularly regarding the existence of a vacant fourth shop, may appear to lack evidentiary foundation.

29. The inference drawn by the Appellate court regarding the existence of a “fourth shop” on the first floor, allegedly vacant, is unsupported by pleadings or material evidence and, therefore, perverse. Both courts below failed to appreciate that the landlord’s decision as to which of his premises would best serve his family’s needs cannot be substituted by judicial opinion unless mala fides are established, which is not the case here.

30. Furthermore, petitioner’s alternate accommodation to the tenants on the second floor, though declined, evidences fairness on his part and shifts the comparative hardship marginally in his favour. The respondents, being long-standing tenants, cannot claim perpetual immunity from eviction when the landlord’s bona fide requirement stands substantiated.

31. The findings impugned, therefore, suffer from material irregularity and misapplication of the statutory test under Section 21(1)(a). The orders of the authorities below cannot be sustained in law. ORDER Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 26.05.2022 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (J.D.), Kashipur, in Rent Control Case No. 06 of 2019, Manish Gupta v. Kewal Ratan and Another, and the judgment dated 24.11.2022 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Kashipur, in Rent Control Appeal No. 2 of 2022 are hereby set aside. WPMS No. 3262 of 2022 Manish Gupta vs. Kewal Ratan and Another 8 Ashish Naithani J. The release application filed by the petitioner under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 stands allowed. The respondents are directed to vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the shop in question to the petitioner within three months from the date of this judgment. However, in the interest of equity, if the respondents file an undertaking before the Prescribed Authority within four weeks from today to vacate the premises within the aforesaid period and continue to pay due rent regularly, no coercive process shall be initiated until expiry of the said period. No order as to costs. (Ashish Naithani, J.) Dated:21.11.2025 NR/ WPMS No. 3262 of 2022 Manish Gupta vs. Kewal Ratan and Another 9 Ashish Naithani J.