Mehmoood Rahmat Ullah Khan & Anr. v. Niyaz Ahmad Khan

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Markandey Katju
Gyan Sudha Misra
Judgment Date: 2011-02-23
Court Decision / Holding: Civil Appeal No. 1264 of 2009: Appeal allowed; impugned High Court judgment set aside; First Appellate Court’s rejection of eviction upheld; the rent-increase direction is set aside. Civil Appeal No. 1073 of 2009: Appeal allowed; no order as to costs; High Court judgment set aside; the eviction petition under Section 21(1)(a) cannot be converted into a rent enhancement proceeding.
Final Disposition: Civil Appeal No. 1264 of 2009: Appeal disposed of; impugned judgment set aside; rent increase direction set aside; eviction upheld by First Appellate Court. Civil Appeal No. 1073 of 2009: Appeal allowed; no order as to costs; High Court judgment set aside."

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Mehmoood Rahmat Ullah Khan & Anr.

Respondents

Niyaz Ahmad Khan

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• G Irshad Ahmad
• Bimal Roy Jad

Counsels for Respondents

• Bimal Roy Jad
• Vikram Rathore
• Irshad Ahmad

Case Synopsis & Summary

Mehmoood Rahmat Ullah Khan & Anr. v. Niyaz Ahmad Khan arises from eviction proceedings under the U.P. Urban Building Act, 1972, challenging eviction on the ground of bonafide need. The landlord filed a petition under Section 21(1)(a) alleging a genuine need to occupy the premises. The prescribed authority rejected the eviction petition, finding that the landlord had failed to establish bonafide need; the Appellate Court affirmed that finding. The Allahabad High Court, while upholding the lack of bonafide need, nonetheless allowed a writ petition that resulted in an increase of rent, a result which is at odds with the settled position that writ courts should ordinarily not interfere with findings of fact in eviction proceedings and that rent enhancement is not a function of Section 21 proceedings. The Supreme Court observes that Section 21 does not empower rent enhancement; any increase would have to be pursued under other provisions of the UP Act, not in eviction proceedings. The Court decided two Civil Appeals: No. 1264 of 2009 and No. 1073 of 2009. In No. 1264, the impugned High Court judgment is set aside and the First Appellate Court’s decision rejecting eviction is upheld, with the rent increase direction set aside. In No. 1073, the appeal is allowed, with no order as to costs. The judgment clarifies the limited scope of Section 21 and reiterates that courts should not convert eviction petitions into rent-raising exercises.”

Provisions of Law Cited

U.P. Urban Building Act, 1972, s. 21Section 21(1)(a)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

High Courts cannot interfere with findings of fact in writ petitions (bonafide need under UP Act)
Rent cannot be enhanced under Section 21; may be enhanced under other provisions

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The landlords contended that bonafide need under Section 21(1)(a) was established; the prescribed authority and the Appellate Court found no bonafide need. The High Court’s writ petition order, which permitted a rent increase, was improper since Section 21 does not authorize rent enhancement. The Supreme Court should restore the First Appellate Court’s decision and set aside the rent increase.

Contentions of Respondents

The tenant argued there is no bonafide need; the High Court rightly upheld that position. The writ petition seeking rent increase was improper, as rent enhancement is not available under Section 21; eviction under Section 21 should stand or be supported by a bonafide need finding, not a rent hike.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2011) 3 S.C.R. 202 ## A ## MEHMOOD RAHMAT ULLAH KHAN & ANR. ## _V._ ## NIYAZ AHMAD KHAN (Civil Appeal No. 1264 of 2009) ## B ## FEBRUARY 23, 2011 **[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]** ## _Rent Control and Eviction:_ c c _U.P. Urban Building Act, 1972- s. 21_ - _Eviction petition_ - - _On the ground of bonafide need Prescribed Authority as also the appellate court holding that the landlord could not_ - - _establish bonafide need Writ Petition High Court upholding the finding as regards the bonafide need of the[On ][appeal held: High ]_ 0 _[landlord, however, increased ][the ][rent ]_[-] _Court in_ a _writ petition cannot interfere with the finding of fact,_ - _regarding bonafide need Under s. 21, rent cannot be_ - _enhanced Direction with regard to increasing the rent, set aside._ E CIVIL APPELLATE JURSDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1264 of 2009. From the Judgment & Order dated 8.10.2007 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. F 46934 of 2002. ## WITH ## C.A. No. 1073 of 2009 G lrshad Ahmad, Bimal Roy Jad for _me_ Appellants. Bimal Roy Jad, Vikram Rathore, lrshad Ahmad for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered H 202 # MEHMOOD RAHMAT ULLAH KHAN & ANR. _v._ NIYAZ _203:_ AHMAD KHAN ## ORDER A ## CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1264 OF 2009 ## Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned B Judgment dated' 8.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Allahabad. The appellant herein is a landlord of premises in question and the respondent is the tenant. The appellant filed a Petition C under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Building Act, 1972 alleging that he has bonafide need of the premises and hence the tenant should be evicted. The prescribed authority found that the landlord could not establish his bonafide need and hence it rejected the petition. The tenant filed an appeal and the 0 Appellate Court has upheld the finding that there is no bonafide need of the premises of the landlord. Surprisingly, the High Court while upholding the finding that there is no bonafide need of the landlord has allowed the Writ Petition by the impugned Judgment dated 8.10.2007 by E increasing the rent. It is well settled that a High Court in Writ Petition cannot interfere with the finding of fact, regarding bonafide need. We are also of the opinion that under Section 21, there is no question of enhancement of rent. That may be done under some other provision of the Act. F Accordingly, we dispose of this appeal with the direction. that the impugned Judgment is set aside and Judgmentof First Appellate Gou rt rejecting· the Petition under $ecUon:2tJs · upheld. The direction increasing rent is set aside, ' . , . The appeal is disposed.of accordingly. 204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 3 S.C.R. 8 ## A CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1073 OF 2009 This Appeal has been filed against the impugned Judgment dated 8.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Allahabad. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence we are not repeating the same here. Under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings Act, 1972, the prescribed authority can either allow the Petition for eviction c of the tenant or it can refuse to do so. It cannot ehance the rent · under those proceedings. Hence, we set aside the impugned Judgment of the High Court. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. N.J. Appeal allowed.