Gulab Chand Chaudhary v. Prahlad) and the impugned judgement and order dated

2. Brief facts of the case are that the dispute relates to a shop situated at Village-Anand Nagar alias Rudrapur Sekhuli, Tappa Lehda, Pargana Haveli, Tahsil- Pharenda, District- Maharajganj. Respondent filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P. Act No.13 of 1972"), which was registered as P.A. Case No.1 of 2000 setting up his need in respect to shop in question for his son Ganesh Kumar. In the aforementioned P.A. Case No.1 of 2000, objection / written statement was filed on behalf of the petitioner. Respondent has filed replication in the aforementioned P.A. case. Prescribed authority / Civil Judge (Junior Division) vide judgement / order dated 28.11.2024 allowed the release application filed by respondent/landlord and directed the petitioner / tenant to vacate the shop within period of 60 days. Petitioner challenged the order of prescribed authority dated 28.11.2024 in appeal under Section 22 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, which was registered as Appeal No.62 of 2024. Appellate Court/ District Judge, Maharajganj vide judgement and order dated 25.7.2025 dismissed the appeal. Hence this petition for the following relief: "issue a suitable order or direction setting aside the impugned judgement and order dated 25.7.2025 passed by District Judge, Maharajganj in Misc. Civil Appeal No.62 of 2024 (Gulab Chand Chaudhary vs. Prahlad) and the impugned judgement and order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Prescribed 2 A227 No. 10311 of 2025 Authority, Pharenda, Maharajganj in Prescribed Authority Case No.01 of 2000 (Prahlad vs. Shri Gulab Chand Chaudhary) under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Annexure No.4 & 2 respectively to this petition)."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the release application filed by respondent has been allowed in illegal and arbitrary manner without examining the bona-fide need setup in the release application in proper manner. He further submitted that the appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed in mechanical manner. He further submitted that a registered sale-deed dated 6.2.2006 was executed by Doodhnath Agrahari in favour of respondent/landlord which was brought on record at the instance of petitioner being Paper No.30 Ga so as to demonstrate that respondent is having property at Nagar Panchayat Anand Nagar, Maharajganj from where his son Ganesh Kumar could have been established to run his clothing business independently but prescribed authority and appellate Court has failed to examine the aforementioned aspect of the matter in proper manner. He further submitted that the prescribed authority and appellate Court has failed to consider the material fact that respondent's son, namely, Ganesh Kumar has been appointed as Assistant Teacher in Basic School, as such, need setup for the son is not bona-fide. He further submitted that both the judgement / should be set aside and release application filed by respondent/landlord should be rejected.

4. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.

5. There is no dispute about the fact that release application filed by respondent/landlord has been allowed by the prescribed authority and order has been maintained in appeal under Section 22 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972.

6. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of issues framed by the prescribed authority will be relevant, which are as under: "01-क्या ्ऺाथर् / वादी को िववािदत दुकान की स्यािवक, वास्तिवक व िनजी आवश्यकता है? 3 A227 No. 10311 of 2025 02- हस्तगत ्ऺकरण में तुलनात्मक किठनाई का िस्धांत िकसके प्ष में है?"

7. Prescribed authority has recorded finding of fact that need setup by the landlord is bona-fide and genuine on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. Prescribed authority has also considered the ratio of law laid down by this Court as well as Apex Court from time to time while considering the bona-fide need of the landlord. Prescribed authority has also examined the issue relating to the comparative hardship and has recorded finding of fact that comparative hardship is in favour of landlord in comparison to tenant.

8.The appellate Court has also framed the point of determination while deciding the appeal filed under Section 22 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, which are as under: "1-क्या वादी को िववािदत दुकान की िनजी आवश्यकता है एवं क्या इस मामले में तुलनात्मक किठनाई का िस्धान्त वादी के प्ष में है? 2- क्या िव्षान िनयत ्ऺािधकारी ्षारा उ्तर ्ऺदेश शहरी भवन िकराये पर देने, िकराये तथा बेदखली का िविनयमन) अिधिनयम 1972 की धारा 21 (1) के ि्षतीय परन्तुक का अनुपालन न करके िविध ्ऴुिट कािरत की गयी है?"

9. The appellate Court has again examined the bona-fide need and comparative hardship of the parties and maintained the order of prescribed authority in proper manner.

10. On the question of bona-fide need of the landlord, 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 4 A227 No. 10311 of 2025 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

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."

11. Considering the ratio of law laid down by Apex Court in Kanahaiya Lal Arya (Supra) as well as finding recorded by the prescribed authority / appellate authority, there is no scope for interference against the impugned judgement / order passed by the prescribed authority dated 28.11.2024/ appellate authority dated 25.7.2025.

12. The instant petition is dismissed. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner/ tenant is granted nine months time to vacate the shop in question subject to the following conditions: 5 A227 No. 10311 of 2025 (a). Petitioner/ tenant shall file an undertaking before the prescribed 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 nine month from the date of passing of this judgment. (b). In the undertaking, petitioner / tenant shall also state that he will not create any third party interest in the shop in question. (c). In case of default of any of the condition mentioned above, protection granted by this Court shall automatically vacated. (d). In case shop in question is not vacated as per the undertaking given by the petitioner/ tenant, he shall be liable for contempt. September 11, 2025 Rameez (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Brief facts of the case are that the dispute relates to a shop situated at Village-Anand Nagar alias Rudrapur Sekhuli, Tappa Lehda, Pargana Haveli, Tahsil- Pharenda, District- Maharajganj. Respondent filed a release application under Section 21 (1) (a) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "U.P. Act No.13 of 1972"), which was registered as P.A. Case No.1 of 2000 setting up his need in respect to shop in question for his son Ganesh Kumar. In the aforementioned P.A. Case No.1 of 2000, objection / written statement was filed on behalf of the petitioner. Respondent has filed replication in the aforementioned P.A. case. Prescribed authority / Civil Judge (Junior Division) vide judgement / order dated 28.11.2024 allowed the release application filed by respondent/landlord and directed the petitioner / tenant to vacate the shop within period of 60 days. Petitioner challenged the order of prescribed authority dated 28.11.2024 in appeal under Section 22 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, which was registered as Appeal No.62 of 2024. Appellate Court/ District Judge, Maharajganj vide judgement and order dated 25.7.2025 dismissed the appeal. Hence this petition for the following relief: "issue a suitable order or direction setting aside the impugned judgement and order dated 25.7.2025 passed by District Judge, Maharajganj in Misc. Civil Appeal No.62 of 2024 (Gulab Chand Chaudhary vs. Prahlad) and the impugned judgement and order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Prescribed 2 A227 No. 10311 of 2025 Authority, Pharenda, Maharajganj in Prescribed Authority Case No.01 of 2000 (Prahlad vs. Shri Gulab Chand Chaudhary) under Section 21 (1) (a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Annexure No.4 & 2 respectively to this petition)."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the release application filed by respondent has been allowed in illegal and arbitrary manner without examining the bona-fide need setup in the release application in proper manner. He further submitted that the appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed in mechanical manner. He further submitted that a registered sale-deed dated 6.2.2006 was executed by Doodhnath Agrahari in favour of respondent/landlord which was brought on record at the instance of petitioner being Paper No.30 Ga so as to demonstrate that respondent is having property at Nagar Panchayat Anand Nagar, Maharajganj from where his son Ganesh Kumar could have been established to run his clothing business independently but prescribed authority and appellate Court has failed to examine the aforementioned aspect of the matter in proper manner. He further submitted that the prescribed authority and appellate Court has failed to consider the material fact that respondent's son, namely, Ganesh Kumar has been appointed as Assistant Teacher in Basic School, as such, need setup for the son is not bona-fide. He further submitted that both the judgement / should be set aside and release application filed by respondent/landlord should be rejected.

4. I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.

5. There is no dispute about the fact that release application filed by respondent/landlord has been allowed by the prescribed authority and order has been maintained in appeal under Section 22 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972.

6. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, perusal of issues framed by the prescribed authority will be relevant, which are as under: "01-क्या ्ऺाथर् / वादी को िववािदत दुकान की स्यािवक, वास्तिवक व िनजी आवश्यकता है? 3 A227 No. 10311 of 2025 02- हस्तगत ्ऺकरण में तुलनात्मक किठनाई का िस्धांत िकसके प्ष में है?"

7. Prescribed authority has recorded finding of fact that need setup by the landlord is bona-fide and genuine on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties. Prescribed authority has also considered the ratio of law laid down by this Court as well as Apex Court from time to time while considering the bona-fide need of the landlord. Prescribed authority has also examined the issue relating to the comparative hardship and has recorded finding of fact that comparative hardship is in favour of landlord in comparison to tenant.

8.The appellate Court has also framed the point of determination while deciding the appeal filed under Section 22 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, which are as under: "1-क्या वादी को िववािदत दुकान की िनजी आवश्यकता है एवं क्या इस मामले में तुलनात्मक किठनाई का िस्धान्त वादी के प्ष में है? 2- क्या िव्षान िनयत ्ऺािधकारी ्षारा उ्तर ्ऺदेश शहरी भवन िकराये पर देने, िकराये तथा बेदखली का िविनयमन) अिधिनयम 1972 की धारा 21 (1) के ि्षतीय परन्तुक का अनुपालन न करके िविध ्ऴुिट कािरत की गयी है?"

9. The appellate Court has again examined the bona-fide need and comparative hardship of the parties and maintained the order of prescribed authority in proper manner.

10. On the question of bona-fide need of the landlord, 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 4 A227 No. 10311 of 2025 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

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."

11. Considering the ratio of law laid down by Apex Court in Kanahaiya Lal Arya (Supra) as well as finding recorded by the prescribed authority / appellate authority, there is no scope for interference against the impugned judgement / order passed by the prescribed authority dated 28.11.2024/ appellate authority dated 25.7.2025.

12. The instant petition is dismissed. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner/ tenant is granted nine months time to vacate the shop in question subject to the following conditions: 5 A227 No. 10311 of 2025 (a). Petitioner/ tenant shall file an undertaking before the prescribed 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 nine month from the date of passing of this judgment. (b). In the undertaking, petitioner / tenant shall also state that he will not create any third party interest in the shop in question. (c). In case of default of any of the condition mentioned above, protection granted by this Court shall automatically vacated. (d). In case shop in question is not vacated as per the undertaking given by the petitioner/ tenant, he shall be liable for contempt. September 11, 2025 Rameez (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.) RAMEEZ AHMED High Court of Judicature at Allahabad