High Court · 2025

Petitioner :- Varsha Agarwal Respondent :- Rent Tribunal/ A.D.S.J./ Special Judge Spcial Court No 4 (P.C Act ) And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Archana Yadav, Brijesh Kumar Yadav, Shreshth Srivastava Amicus,Varsha Agarwal Inperson Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Raman Malvia, Sharad Trivedi Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

1. Heard the Amicus appointed by this Court Sri Shreshth Srivastava who ably assisted this Court and Sri Raman Malvia the counsel for the respondent.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23.01.2024 whereby an order of eviction was passed against the petitioner under section 21(2)(m) of the Rent Control Act 2021 as well as the appellate order dated 12.08.2024 whereby the appeal preferred was dismissed.

3. The facts, in brief, as arise and argued by the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had taken a shop from the respondent in the year 2013. Subsequently, it is argued that an agreement was executed in between the parties on 16.08.2021, which was valid for eleven month, however, before eleven months expired, an application was filed after serving the notice for vacating the premises, on which the orders have been passed which are impugned in the writ petition.

4. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of the mandate of Section 21(2)(m), it is incumbent that the requirement should be setup by the landlord. He argues that although, the Act of 2021, is not as rigorous as the earlier Act being U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, it is still essential that the requirement as prescribed under section 21(2)(m) should be considered as a valid requirement and should not be a mere desire. He further argues that the need setup by the landlord was that the son of the landlord had qualified from the Pharmacy Council and as such, he wants to set up a shop. It is argued that the son of the landlord had acquired diploma in the Pharmacy in the year 2015 and no explanation was offered as to why the shop in question was required after a substantial time. It is further argued that the petitioner is a widow and would face extreme hardship if she is directed to vacate the shop in question. He argues that the phrase 'required' used in the section has to be more than the 'mere need' or 'desire'. It is also argued that the manner in which, the adjudication has happened is contrary to the mandate of section 33 (e) of the Act.

5. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Muttu Lal vs. Radhey Lal; AIR 1974 SC 1596 wherein the phrase 'required' was interpreted. He also placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Baga Begum vs. Abdul Ahmad Khan; AIR 1979 SC 27 wherein the Supreme Court had the occasion to consider the distinction between 'desire' and 'need'.

6. The counsel for the petitioner has laboriously worked on the case and also placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Prof. Salahuddin Qureshi vs. Smt. Nasim Aijaz; 2012 SCC Online All 2009 wherein the distinction between 'desire', 'need' and 'requirement' were considered.

7. In the light of the said, it is argued that the order impugned are liable to be quashed. He lastly argues that in case, the court is not accepting the submission of the petitioner, she may be granted some reasonable time to vacate the premises and a period of one year would be reasonable as submitted by the petitioner.

8. The counsel for the petitioner, on other hand, supports the judgment by arguing that the 'requirement' as specified under the new Act of 2021 is a 'requirement' and the tenant cannot argue that the requirement is not genuine or fanciful. He further argues that the landlord wanted to establish his son in the shop in question and in any case the term of tenancy had come to an end, which in itself is a ground for seeking release as specified under section 21(2)(j) of the said Act. He however has no objection if some reasonable time is granted by this court to vacate the premises.

9. Considering the submissions made at the bar, the emphasis on the word 'required' used under section 21(m), cannot be seen in the context of interpretation of the word 'required' even by the Supreme Court in the judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioner as, the said judgment are in the context of the Rent Control Acts which substantially regulated the tenancies and eviction. The said rigorous provision was done away by the enactment of the new Act in the year 2021. Thus, the submission to that extent, cannot be accepted.

10. In the present case, the term of the tenancy had admittedly come to an end, even if eleven months' period is counted from 16.08.2021 and thus, in any case, the tenancy stood determined by efflux of time, as such, the order impugned cannot be faulted with.

11. The writ petition is dismissed.

12. However, the petitioner, being a widow, is granted six months' time to vacate the premises subject to the petitioner filing an undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the Prescribed Authority within a period of two weeks from today that she will handover the vacant and physical possession of the shop in question to landlord and no one else. However, the due rent shall also be deposited as and when the same falls due till the actual vacation.

13. The petitioner is granted time of six months i.e. up to 31.08.2025. In case the petitioner does not file the undertaking as directed above within the time granted, the landlord would be at liberty to execute the orders in accordance with law.

14. It is clarified that the overdue electricity bills or rent shall also be deposited by the petitioner within a period of one month from today. In the event of failure to deposit the said, the protection granted by this court shall come to an end.

15. This court records the appreciation of the counsel for the petitioner in the manner in which he assisted the court. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 VNP/- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Petitioner :- Varsha Agarwal Respondent :- Rent Tribunal/ A.D.S.J./ Special Judge Spcial Court No 4 (P.C Act ) And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Archana Yadav, Brijesh Kumar Yadav, Shreshth Srivastava Amicus,Varsha Agarwal Inperson Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Raman Malvia, Sharad Trivedi Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

1. Heard the Amicus appointed by this Court Sri Shreshth Srivastava who ably assisted this Court and Sri Raman Malvia the counsel for the respondent.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23.01.2024 whereby an order of eviction was passed against the petitioner under section 21(2)(m) of the Rent Control Act 2021 as well as the appellate order dated 12.08.2024 whereby the appeal preferred was dismissed.

3. The facts, in brief, as arise and argued by the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had taken a shop from the respondent in the year 2013. Subsequently, it is argued that an agreement was executed in between the parties on 16.08.2021, which was valid for eleven month, however, before eleven months expired, an application was filed after serving the notice for vacating the premises, on which the orders have been passed which are impugned in the writ petition.

4. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of the mandate of Section 21(2)(m), it is incumbent that the requirement should be setup by the landlord. He argues that although, the Act of 2021, is not as rigorous as the earlier Act being U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, it is still essential that the requirement as prescribed under section 21(2)(m) should be considered as a valid requirement and should not be a mere desire. He further argues that the need setup by the landlord was that the son of the landlord had qualified from the Pharmacy Council and as such, he wants to set up a shop. It is argued that the son of the landlord had acquired diploma in the Pharmacy in the year 2015 and no explanation was offered as to why the shop in question was required after a substantial time. It is further argued that the petitioner is a widow and would face extreme hardship if she is directed to vacate the shop in question. He argues that the phrase 'required' used in the section has to be more than the 'mere need' or 'desire'. It is also argued that the manner in which, the adjudication has happened is contrary to the mandate of section 33 (e) of the Act.

5. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Muttu Lal vs. Radhey Lal; AIR 1974 SC 1596 wherein the phrase 'required' was interpreted. He also placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Baga Begum vs. Abdul Ahmad Khan; AIR 1979 SC 27 wherein the Supreme Court had the occasion to consider the distinction between 'desire' and 'need'.

6. The counsel for the petitioner has laboriously worked on the case and also placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Prof. Salahuddin Qureshi vs. Smt. Nasim Aijaz; 2012 SCC Online All 2009 wherein the distinction between 'desire', 'need' and 'requirement' were considered.

7. In the light of the said, it is argued that the order impugned are liable to be quashed. He lastly argues that in case, the court is not accepting the submission of the petitioner, she may be granted some reasonable time to vacate the premises and a period of one year would be reasonable as submitted by the petitioner.

8. The counsel for the petitioner, on other hand, supports the judgment by arguing that the 'requirement' as specified under the new Act of 2021 is a 'requirement' and the tenant cannot argue that the requirement is not genuine or fanciful. He further argues that the landlord wanted to establish his son in the shop in question and in any case the term of tenancy had come to an end, which in itself is a ground for seeking release as specified under section 21(2)(j) of the said Act. He however has no objection if some reasonable time is granted by this court to vacate the premises.

9. Considering the submissions made at the bar, the emphasis on the word 'required' used under section 21(m), cannot be seen in the context of interpretation of the word 'required' even by the Supreme Court in the judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioner as, the said judgment are in the context of the Rent Control Acts which substantially regulated the tenancies and eviction. The said rigorous provision was done away by the enactment of the new Act in the year 2021. Thus, the submission to that extent, cannot be accepted.

10. In the present case, the term of the tenancy had admittedly come to an end, even if eleven months' period is counted from 16.08.2021 and thus, in any case, the tenancy stood determined by efflux of time, as such, the order impugned cannot be faulted with.

11. The writ petition is dismissed.

12. However, the petitioner, being a widow, is granted six months' time to vacate the premises subject to the petitioner filing an undertaking in the form of an affidavit before the Prescribed Authority within a period of two weeks from today that she will handover the vacant and physical possession of the shop in question to landlord and no one else. However, the due rent shall also be deposited as and when the same falls due till the actual vacation.

13. The petitioner is granted time of six months i.e. up to 31.08.2025. In case the petitioner does not file the undertaking as directed above within the time granted, the landlord would be at liberty to execute the orders in accordance with law.

14. It is clarified that the overdue electricity bills or rent shall also be deposited by the petitioner within a period of one month from today. In the event of failure to deposit the said, the protection granted by this court shall come to an end.

15. This court records the appreciation of the counsel for the petitioner in the manner in which he assisted the court. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 VNP/- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench