Rajkumar Dua v. Smt. Poonam Malik) and order dated

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 14.7.2025 passed by Rent Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Court No.9, Kanpur Nagar in Appeal No. 713 of 2023 (Rajkumar Dua Vs. Smt. Poonam Malik) and order dated 14.8.2023 passed by Rent Authority/ Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Kanpur Nagar in case No. 1715 of 2022 (Poonam Malik Vs. Rajkumar Dua). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent as well as the rent authority not to evict the petitioner from his lawful tenancy in premise No. 17/5, Block-2, Govind Nagar, Kanpur Nagar, consisting of one shop at ground floor, during the pendency of the writ petition before this Hon'ble Court otherwise the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."

3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that proceeding initiated by the landlord/ respondent was illegally allowed by the rent authority without framing proper issues in the proceeding. He further submitted that there was no default in the payment of rent by the tenant and need of the landlord was no bonafide, as such, the order passed by rent authority cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that in appeal, the appellate Tribunal has held that there was no default in payment of rent by the tenant to the landlord but while deciding the point of determination no.4, the appellate Tribunal has held that need of the landlord is bonafide and genuine without considering the hardship of the petitioner/ tenant in proper manner. He submitted that impugned order passed by the rent authority as well as appellate Tribunal should be set aside.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Siddharth Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord submitted that there was bonafide need of the landlord accordingly the proceeding was initiated before the rent authority. He submitted that both the authorities have concurrently held that need of the landlord was bonafide and genuine, as such, there is no scope for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that instant petition filed by tenant should be dismissed.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.

6. There is no dispute about the fact that proceeding under Section 21 (2) of the Act of 2021 initiated by the respondent/ landlord has been decided by the rent authority directing the tenant to vacate the shop in question after payment of due rent to the landlord. There is also no dispute about the fact that in appeal, Rent Tribunal has held that there was no default in payment of rent by the tenant to the landlord but need of the landlord is bona fide and genuine accordingly the appeal was dismissed and direction was issued to vacate premises.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the point of determination framed by the rent Tribunal while deciding the appeal will be relevant for perusal which is as under:- कयय पतयरर व अपपलयरर कक मधय भवन सवयमप व ककरययकदयर कय ससबसध सरयकपत "1) हह? कयय भवनसवयमप / पतयरर दयरय ककरययकदयर / अपपलयरर कक कवधधक नककटस पककषत (2) कक गयप? कयय अपपलयरर / (3) मम कवफल रहय हह, सकतय हह? ककरयएदयर दयरय भवनसवयकमनप कक कनयमयननसयर ककरययय अदय करनक धजसकक आधयर पर ककरयएदयरप सक बकदखलप कय आदकश पयररत ककयय जय कक पयवधयनन कक अननकम मम ककरययकदयर कक पशनगत ककरययकदयरप वयलक भयग सक आवशयकतय कक आधयर पर कक धयरय-21(2) (m) कयय अधधकनयम, 2021 (4) अपपलयरर/ बकदखल ककयय जय सकतय हह कक नहह? कयय भभसवयमप दयरय 'अधधकनयम, 2021' (5) ककयय जयनय आवशयक हह यय नहह? यकद हयह तक पभयव? कक धयरय-4 कक पयवधयनन कय अननपयलन कयय वयकदनप दयरय 'अधधकनयम, 2021' (6) अदय ककयय गयय हह? कक धयरय-39 कक तहत पययरप नयययशनलक कयय कवदयन कवचयरण नययययलय / (7) कदनयसककत 14.08.2023 कवधध एसव तथयन कक अननकभ ल हह?" ककरययय पयधधकरण दयरय पयररत पशनगत कनणरय

8. Perusal of finding of fact recorded by appellate Tribunal on the point of determination no.4 regarding bonafide need will be relevant which is as under:- "उपरक्ሹ ससपभणर कवशलकषण एवस मयननपय उच्च एवस उच्चतम नययययलय दयरय पयररत कवधध व्यवसरयओस मम उकቤኌधखत पयवधयनन कक अननकम मम नययययलय इस मत कक हह कक कवधध कय यह सनसरयकपत धसदयसत हह कक सदयवप आवशयकतय कय परप्ቌण करनक मम भभसवयमप कक इच्छय एवस उपयन्ሹतय सनससगत हह तरय ककरययकदयर सवयस कक शतरस कक अधधरककपत नहह कर सकतय हह। भभसवयमप कक अपनप आवशयकतयओस कक अधधकनणरत करनक तरय अपनक कववकक एवस सवकच्छयय कक अननसयर कनवयस करनक कक इस अधधकयर कक ततृतपय व्यक्ሹ जहसक ककरययकदयर यय यहयह तक कक नययययलय भप कनयसकቔኌत नहह कर सकतय। कयनकक यह मकयन मयधलक कय कवशकषयधधकयर हकतय हह कक वह अपनक मकयन मम ककस सनख-सनकवधय कक सयर रह सकतय हह और ककस पकयर सक उसकय उपयकग करक। तदननसयर अवधययर कबनदन ससख्यय-4 अपपलयरर कक कवरुद तरय पतयरर कक प्ቌ मम कनणरत ककयय जयतय हह। "

9. The Apex Court in the case reported in 2025 (3) ADJ 308, Kanahaiya Lal Arya vs. Md. Ehshan & Others has held that the landlord is a best judge to decide which of his property should be vacated for satisfying his particular need and tenant has no role in dictating as to which premises of the landlord should get vacated for his need alleged in the suit for eviction. Paragraph nos.11,15 & 16 of the judgement of Apex Court rendered in Kanahaiya Lal Arya (supra) will be relevant, which are as under: "11. In the case at hand, the appellant-landlord may be having some other properties under tenancy of various persons but once he has decided to get the suit premises vacated for the bona fide need of establishing an ultrasound machine for his two unemployed sons, he cannot be forced to initiate such a proceeding against the other tenants. It is for the appellant- landlord to take a decision in this regard and once he has decided to get the suit premises vacated, no error or illegality could be pointed out in his decision. Secondly, it has come on record by clear finding of the court of first instance that the suit premises is the most suitable accommodation for establishing an ultrasound machine. The reason being that it is situated adjacent to a medical clinic and a pathological centre and is the most appropriate place for establishing any medical machine. Moreover, the appellant-landlord has also proved his capacity to invest in purchasing/establishing an ultrasound machine and that his two sons are unemployed and as such the suit premises is required to establish them in business and to augment the family?s income. Therefore, the bona fide need of the appellant-landlord stands duly established.

15. As would be evident from the above compromise, the decree for partial eviction from the premises occupied by the respondents-tenant was partially decreed in Second Appeal No.40/1983 on 31.03.1988 for the bona fide need of the appellant-landlord to establish his brother-in-law. The said need was altogether a different need. The said decree of the year 1988, even if not used for the purpose intended, it would not affect the rights of the appellant- landlord which accrues to him in the year 2001. The need of the appellant-landlord for getting the suit premises vacated for establishing his two sons has to be seen on the date of filing of the suit i.e., 28.11.2001. On the said date, the need of the appellant-landlord stands established. The said need would not get eroded by any earlier decree of eviction of the year 1988.

16. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant-landlord has proved his bona fide need for the suit premises. The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 18.08.2022 and 25.09.2006 of the High Court and the First Appellate Court respectively are set aside. The suit of the appellant- landlord stands decreed."

10. The rent Tribunal while deciding the point of determination no.4 has recorded the finding of fact that need of the landlord is bonafide and genuine considering the ratio of law laid down by this Court as well as Apex Court from time to time.

11. Considering the finding of fact recorded on the bonafide need by rent authority and appellate Tribunal as well as ratio of law laid down by Apex Court in Kanahaiya Lal Arya (Supra), there is no scope for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the rent authority and appellate Tribunal.

12. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner/ tenant is granted three months time from today to vacate the shop in question subject to the following conditions:- (a) Petitioner/ tenant shall file an undertaking before the rent authority within period of three weeks from today to the effect that he will handover peaceful possession of the shop in question to the respondent/ landlord within period of three months from the date of passing of this order.. (b) Petitioner/ tenant shall pay monthly rent of the shop in question to the landlord as mentioned in paragraph nos. 47 of the judgement of rent tribunal in appeal No. 135 of 2023. (c) In the undertaking, the petitioner/ tenant shall also state that he will not create any third party interest in the shop in question. (d) In case of default of any of the condition mentioned above, protection granted by this Court shall automatically vacated. (e) In case, shop in question is not vacated as per the undertaking given by the petitioner/ tenant, he shall be liable for contempt. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Vandana Y. VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 14.7.2025 passed by Rent Tribunal/ Additional District Judge, Court No.9, Kanpur Nagar in Appeal No. 713 of 2023 (Rajkumar Dua Vs. Smt. Poonam Malik) and order dated 14.8.2023 passed by Rent Authority/ Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Kanpur Nagar in case No. 1715 of 2022 (Poonam Malik Vs. Rajkumar Dua). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent as well as the rent authority not to evict the petitioner from his lawful tenancy in premise No. 17/5, Block-2, Govind Nagar, Kanpur Nagar, consisting of one shop at ground floor, during the pendency of the writ petition before this Hon'ble Court otherwise the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."

3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that proceeding initiated by the landlord/ respondent was illegally allowed by the rent authority without framing proper issues in the proceeding. He further submitted that there was no default in the payment of rent by the tenant and need of the landlord was no bonafide, as such, the order passed by rent authority cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that in appeal, the appellate Tribunal has held that there was no default in payment of rent by the tenant to the landlord but while deciding the point of determination no.4, the appellate Tribunal has held that need of the landlord is bonafide and genuine without considering the hardship of the petitioner/ tenant in proper manner. He submitted that impugned order passed by the rent authority as well as appellate Tribunal should be set aside.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Siddharth Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondent/landlord submitted that there was bonafide need of the landlord accordingly the proceeding was initiated before the rent authority. He submitted that both the authorities have concurrently held that need of the landlord was bonafide and genuine, as such, there is no scope for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that instant petition filed by tenant should be dismissed.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.

6. There is no dispute about the fact that proceeding under Section 21 (2) of the Act of 2021 initiated by the respondent/ landlord has been decided by the rent authority directing the tenant to vacate the shop in question after payment of due rent to the landlord. There is also no dispute about the fact that in appeal, Rent Tribunal has held that there was no default in payment of rent by the tenant to the landlord but need of the landlord is bona fide and genuine accordingly the appeal was dismissed and direction was issued to vacate premises.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, the point of determination framed by the rent Tribunal while deciding the appeal will be relevant for perusal which is as under:- कयय पतयरर व अपपलयरर कक मधय भवन सवयमप व ककरययकदयर कय ससबसध सरयकपत "1) हह? कयय भवनसवयमप / पतयरर दयरय ककरययकदयर / अपपलयरर कक कवधधक नककटस पककषत (2) कक गयप? कयय अपपलयरर / (3) मम कवफल रहय हह, सकतय हह? ककरयएदयर दयरय भवनसवयकमनप कक कनयमयननसयर ककरययय अदय करनक धजसकक आधयर पर ककरयएदयरप सक बकदखलप कय आदकश पयररत ककयय जय कक पयवधयनन कक अननकम मम ककरययकदयर कक पशनगत ककरययकदयरप वयलक भयग सक आवशयकतय कक आधयर पर कक धयरय-21(2) (m) कयय अधधकनयम, 2021 (4) अपपलयरर/ बकदखल ककयय जय सकतय हह कक नहह? कयय भभसवयमप दयरय 'अधधकनयम, 2021' (5) ककयय जयनय आवशयक हह यय नहह? यकद हयह तक पभयव? कक धयरय-4 कक पयवधयनन कय अननपयलन कयय वयकदनप दयरय 'अधधकनयम, 2021' (6) अदय ककयय गयय हह? कक धयरय-39 कक तहत पययरप नयययशनलक कयय कवदयन कवचयरण नययययलय / (7) कदनयसककत 14.08.2023 कवधध एसव तथयन कक अननकभ ल हह?" ककरययय पयधधकरण दयरय पयररत पशनगत कनणरय

8. Perusal of finding of fact recorded by appellate Tribunal on the point of determination no.4 regarding bonafide need will be relevant which is as under:- "उपरक्ሹ ससपभणर कवशलकषण एवस मयननपय उच्च एवस उच्चतम नययययलय दयरय पयररत कवधध व्यवसरयओस मम उकቤኌधखत पयवधयनन कक अननकम मम नययययलय इस मत कक हह कक कवधध कय यह सनसरयकपत धसदयसत हह कक सदयवप आवशयकतय कय परप्ቌण करनक मम भभसवयमप कक इच्छय एवस उपयन्ሹतय सनससगत हह तरय ककरययकदयर सवयस कक शतरस कक अधधरककपत नहह कर सकतय हह। भभसवयमप कक अपनप आवशयकतयओस कक अधधकनणरत करनक तरय अपनक कववकक एवस सवकच्छयय कक अननसयर कनवयस करनक कक इस अधधकयर कक ततृतपय व्यक्ሹ जहसक ककरययकदयर यय यहयह तक कक नययययलय भप कनयसकቔኌत नहह कर सकतय। कयनकक यह मकयन मयधलक कय कवशकषयधधकयर हकतय हह कक वह अपनक मकयन मम ककस सनख-सनकवधय कक सयर रह सकतय हह और ककस पकयर सक उसकय उपयकग करक। तदननसयर अवधययर कबनदन ससख्यय-4 अपपलयरर कक कवरुद तरय पतयरर कक प्ቌ मम कनणरत ककयय जयतय हह। "

9. The Apex Court in the case reported in 2025 (3) ADJ 308, Kanahaiya Lal Arya vs. Md. Ehshan & Others has held that the landlord is a best judge to decide which of his property should be vacated for satisfying his particular need and tenant has no role in dictating as to which premises of the landlord should get vacated for his need alleged in the suit for eviction. Paragraph nos.11,15 & 16 of the judgement of Apex Court rendered in Kanahaiya Lal Arya (supra) will be relevant, which are as under: "11. In the case at hand, the appellant-landlord may be having some other properties under tenancy of various persons but once he has decided to get the suit premises vacated for the bona fide need of establishing an ultrasound machine for his two unemployed sons, he cannot be forced to initiate such a proceeding against the other tenants. It is for the appellant- landlord to take a decision in this regard and once he has decided to get the suit premises vacated, no error or illegality could be pointed out in his decision. Secondly, it has come on record by clear finding of the court of first instance that the suit premises is the most suitable accommodation for establishing an ultrasound machine. The reason being that it is situated adjacent to a medical clinic and a pathological centre and is the most appropriate place for establishing any medical machine. Moreover, the appellant-landlord has also proved his capacity to invest in purchasing/establishing an ultrasound machine and that his two sons are unemployed and as such the suit premises is required to establish them in business and to augment the family?s income. Therefore, the bona fide need of the appellant-landlord stands duly established.

15. As would be evident from the above compromise, the decree for partial eviction from the premises occupied by the respondents-tenant was partially decreed in Second Appeal No.40/1983 on 31.03.1988 for the bona fide need of the appellant-landlord to establish his brother-in-law. The said need was altogether a different need. The said decree of the year 1988, even if not used for the purpose intended, it would not affect the rights of the appellant- landlord which accrues to him in the year 2001. The need of the appellant-landlord for getting the suit premises vacated for establishing his two sons has to be seen on the date of filing of the suit i.e., 28.11.2001. On the said date, the need of the appellant-landlord stands established. The said need would not get eroded by any earlier decree of eviction of the year 1988.

16. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant-landlord has proved his bona fide need for the suit premises. The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 18.08.2022 and 25.09.2006 of the High Court and the First Appellate Court respectively are set aside. The suit of the appellant- landlord stands decreed."

10. The rent Tribunal while deciding the point of determination no.4 has recorded the finding of fact that need of the landlord is bonafide and genuine considering the ratio of law laid down by this Court as well as Apex Court from time to time.

11. Considering the finding of fact recorded on the bonafide need by rent authority and appellate Tribunal as well as ratio of law laid down by Apex Court in Kanahaiya Lal Arya (Supra), there is no scope for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the rent authority and appellate Tribunal.

12. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner/ tenant is granted three months time from today to vacate the shop in question subject to the following conditions:- (a) Petitioner/ tenant shall file an undertaking before the rent authority within period of three weeks from today to the effect that he will handover peaceful possession of the shop in question to the respondent/ landlord within period of three months from the date of passing of this order.. (b) Petitioner/ tenant shall pay monthly rent of the shop in question to the landlord as mentioned in paragraph nos. 47 of the judgement of rent tribunal in appeal No. 135 of 2023. (c) In the undertaking, the petitioner/ tenant shall also state that he will not create any third party interest in the shop in question. (d) In case of default of any of the condition mentioned above, protection granted by this Court shall automatically vacated. (e) In case, shop in question is not vacated as per the undertaking given by the petitioner/ tenant, he shall be liable for contempt. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 Vandana Y. VANDANA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad