High CourtDivision Bench1986-03-10Appeal Allowed

OM PRAKASH v. BHAGWAN DAS

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal No. 959 of 1986

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: A.P. SEN
B.C. RAY
K.N. SINGH
Judgment Date: 1986-03-10
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court’s decision and restored the orders of the Prescribed Authority, Varanasi and the II Additional District Judge, Varanasi, directing the release of the accommodation under s. 21(1)(a) of the Act. The Court directed that the premises be allotted to the respondent with the landlord’s consent, or, if consent is not forthcoming, that reasonably suitable alternative accommodation be provided. The eviction order should not be executed for six months if undertakings are furnished. The parties were to pursue exchange or accommodation arrangements before the Prescribed Authority, Varanasi, on terms set out.
Final Disposition: Appeal Allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Om Prakash

Respondents

Bhagwan Das

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• R.B. Mehrotra

Counsels for Respondents

• Sunil Aml Mani
• Mukul Mudgal

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court decision concerns eviction under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The landlord (Om Prakash) sought eviction under Section 21(1)(a) on the bona fide ground that he required the demised premises for his own use; the fourth proviso to Section 21(1)(a) and Rule 16(1)(f) guide the liberal treatment of such claims when the landlord offers reasonably suitable accommodation to the tenant. The Prescribed Authority at Varanasi and the II Additional District Judge, also considering comparative hardship, granted the eviction, holding that the landlord’s need was bona fide and that depriving him of his own property would cause hardship since he lived in rented premises. The Allahabad High Court, however, reversed those orders. The Supreme Court, comprising A.P. Sen, B.C. Ray and K.N. Singh, set aside the High Court’s judgment, holding that there was no infirmity in the lower authorities’ orders and that the case falls squarely within the liberalized framework of the statute. The Court restored the eviction order and directed that, on terms of exchange or reasonable alternative accommodation, eviction be effected, with a six‑month stay if undertakings are furnished. The decision—affirming liberal requirements for eviction when bona fide need exists—emphasizes balancing hardship between landlord and tenant and the obligation to consider reasonable alternatives.

Provisions of Law Cited

U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Rules, 1972Section 21(1)(a) of the ActFourth proviso to Section 21(1)(a)Rule 16(1)(f) of the RulesSection 13(2) and Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

A just balance between the landlord and the tenant
greater hardship test
the liberal interpretation of Section 21(1)(a) with the 4th proviso
burden of proof lies on the tenant in hardship determinations
existence of alternative accommodation on both sides is important but not decisive
both parties must lead evidence; the decision cannot turn on mere burden of proof

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant-landlord contended that the eviction on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord and his family is to be considered liberally when he offers reasonable accommodation to the tenant. He argued that the 4th proviso to s.21(1)(a) and Rule 16(1)(f) mandate a balanced approach and that denial would cause greater hardship to the landlord, who occupies rented premises and seeks to enjoy the beneficial use of his own property. The lower authorities’ findings of bona fide need and application of the liberal principle should be sustained; the High Court erred in reversing those findings.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent-tenant challenged the order on the ground that the landlord’s need was not proved and that evicting the tenant would cause hardship without adequate alternative accommodation. They argued the High Court correctly scrutinized the evidence and that the landlord’s occupancy status in rented premises made eviction improper without satisfying the strict criteria and available alternatives. They pressed that the court should not override the High Court’s assessment without clear evidence of error in the lower authorities’ application of the 4th proviso and Rule 16(1)(f).

Cited Precedents (6)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Bhaicband Ratanshi v. I.:ixmlsbanker Tribhovan	[1981] 3 S.C.C. 502	Positive	Cited to illustrate the balancing approach and the concept that eviction should not cause hardship; used as supportive authority for the just balance between landlord and tenant.
Sim v. Wilson	[1946] 2 All E.R. 261	Positive	Cited among English authorities for determining hardship and the need for accommodating both sides.
Fowle v. Bell	[1946] 2 All E.R. 668	Positive	Used to support principles on hardship and balancing in eviction cases.
Sadth v. Penny	[1946] 2 All E.R. 672	Positive	Cited for English law insights on hardship and relief in eviction proceedings.
Chandler v. Strevett	[1947] 1 All E.R. 164	Positive	Referenced for ratio on hardship assessment and balancing.
Kelley v. Goodrich	[1947] 1 All E.R. 810	Positive	Cited as part of the English authorities on related principles of eviction and hardship.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against OM PRAKASH v. BHAGWAN DAS and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

598 A OM PRAKASH + v. BllAGWAN DAS MARCH 10, 1986 B ### c D E [A.P. SEN, B.C. RAY AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Rent and Eviction) ##### Act 1972 & U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Rules, 1972, s. 21(1) (a) 4th Proviso/Rule 16(l)(f) - Landlord seeking ajectment of tenant on bona fide need Landlord offering reasonable, suitable accormnodation to tenant - Landlord's claim to eviction to be considered liberally. The Prescribed Authority, Varanasi and the Second Additional District Judge, in revision, after considering the comparative hardship likely to be caused to the tenant and the landlord, allowed the application of the appellant - landlord under s. 2l(l)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 on the ground that the need of the appellant-landlord was bona fide and he was entitled to the release of the demised premises. The Authori##### ties also held that since the appellant was living in the rented premises, there was no reason why he should be deprived of the beneficial enjoyment of his own property. However, in the appeal, the High Court set aside the orders passed by the aforesaid two Authorities. Allowing the appeal, # .. F BEU> : 1. There was no infirmity in the order of the ##### Prescribed Authority or that of the learned II Additional District Judge. The High Court was clearly in error in interfering with the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, ##### Varanasi and that of the II Additional District Judge, G Varanasi. The judgment and order of the High Court are, therefore, set aside. The order of the Prescribed Authority, ##### Varanasi and that of the II Additional Judge, Varanasi,.._ directing the release of the acco111110dation under s. 21 (1 )(a) of the Act are restored. [601 D; 601 H) H OM PRAKASH v. BHAGWAN DAS [SEN, J. ] 599 A ##### 2. One of the factors prescribed by r. 16 (l)(f) is that #### if the landlord applies for ejectment of the tenant on the ##### ground that the acco111DOdation is bona fide required by him for #### his use and the members of his family and if the landlord offers reasonably suitable accommodation to the tenant for the • needs of his family, the landlord's claim for eviction shall B be considered liberally. (601 B] In the instant case, the refusal of the application of the landlord under s. 21 (l) (a) of the Act would undoubtedly cause greater hardship to him as that would deprive of his #### beneficial enjoyment of his own property. In such a case, it could not be said that the landlord had not fulfilled the C requirement of the 4th proviso to s.2l(l)(a) of the Act. (601 D] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 959 of 1986. From the Judgment and Order dated 1.5.1985 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.~. No. 11377 of 1980. R.B. Mehrotra for the Appellant. Sunil Aml:Mani and Mukul Mudgal for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN, J. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the High Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was clearly in error in interfering with the order passed by the Prescribed Authority, Varanasi and that of the 11 Additional District Judge, Varanasi by which they allowed the application made by the appellant under s. 21(1) (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Although the Authorities on a consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that the need of the landlord was bona fide and he was entitled to the release of the demised premises under s. 21(1) (a) of the Act. Admittedly, the appellant and the respondent are displaced persons and the authorities held that since the appellant was living in rented premises there was no reason why he should be deprived of the beneficial enjoyment of his own property. D. E F G H A B #### c D E F G H ### 600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] l s.c.R. In **Bhaicband** **Ratanshi** **v.** **I.:ixmlsbanker Tribhovan,** [ 1981] ## 3 s.c.c. 502 this Court interpreting the analogous provisions in s. 13 (1) (g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 observed : "The Legislature by enacting Section 13 (2) of the Act seeks to strike a just balance between the landlord and the tenant so that the order of eviction under Section 13 (1) (g) o·f the Act does not cause any hardship to either side. The considerations that weigh in striking ·a just balance between the landlord and the tenant were indicated in a series of decisions of the Court of Appeal, interpreting an analogous provision of the Rent {Ind Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Act, ##### 1933 (c,32), Section 3 (1), Schedule I, para (h) : **Sim** **v.** **Wilson,** [1946] 2 All E.R. 261; **Fowle** **v.** **Bell,** [1946] 2 All E.R. 668; **Sad.th** **v.** **Penny,** [1946] 2 All E.R. 672; **Chandler** **v.** **St.revett:,** [1947] l All E.R. 164; and **Kelley v.** **Gooclirin,** [1947] l All E.R. 810. One of the most. important factors in considering the question of greater hardship is whether other reasonable accommodation. is available to the landlord or the tenant. The court would have to put #### in the scale other circumstances which would tilt the balance of hardship on either side, including financial means available to them for securing alternative accommodation either by purchase or by hiring one, the nature and extent of the business or other requirement of residential accommodation, ##### as the case may be, It must, however, be observed that the existence of alternative accommodation on both sides is an important but not a decisive factor. On the issue of greater hardship the English Courts have uniformly laid down that the burden of proof is on the tenant. We are inclined to the view that on the terms of Section 13 (2) of ## ' ##### the Act, the decision cannot turn on mere burden of :,_,. proof, but both the parties must lead evidence. The question whether or not there would be greater hardship caused to the tenant by passing the decree must necessarily depend on facts and circumstances **of** **each** **case."** OM PRAKASH v. BHAGWAN DAS [SEN, J. ] 601 A plain reading of s. 21 (l)(a) of the Act read with the 4th proviso thereto and r. 16 (l)(f) shows that the scheme under the Act is the same. One of the factors prescribed by r~ ##### 16 (l)(f) is that if the landlord applies for ejectment of the tenant on the ground that the accommodation is bona fide required by him for his use and the.members of his family and #### if the landlord offers reasonably suitable accommodation to the tenant for the needs of his family, the landlord's claim for eviction shall be considered liberally. In the present ##### case, the Prescribed Authority and the II Additional District Judge both, after considering the coqiaratl.ve hardship likely to be caused to the tenant and the landlord, recorded a finding that on the refusal of the application, the landlord would be put to greater hardship. There was no infirmity in the order of the Prescribed ##### Authority or that of the learned II Additional District Judge. .+ ~ The (a) of the Act refusal of the would application undoubtedly cause of the landlord under greater hardship s. 21 to him (1) as that would deprive of his beneficial enjoyment of his own #### property. In such a case, it could not be said that the land lord had not fulfilled the requirement of the 4th proviso to s. 21(1) (a) of the Act. The High Court obviously committed an error in interfering with the findings of the Prescribed ##### Authority and the learned II Additional District Judge on the ground that the landlord had failed to fulfil the requirements of the 4th proviso to s. 21 (1) (a) of the Act. ~ We wish to record that Shri R.B •. Mehrotra learned counsel for the appellant made an offer that the rented premises in occupation of the appellant may be given to the respondent who ##### is his tenant in exchange. We think that this was a very reasonable offer and should be accepted. Shri Sunil Aml:Mani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent stated that the respondent was not agreeable to his proposal. We, therefore, heard the parties on merits. ##### -f ln the view that we take, the appeal llllSt succeed and is allowed. We set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and restore that of the Prescribed Authority, Varaaasi and that of the 11 Additional District Judge, Varanasi directing the release of the accommodation under s. 21 (1) (a) of the Act. We direct that the. Prescribed Authority, Vacanasi shall A B #### c D E F G H A B ### c 602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19861 1 s.c.R. on an application being made by the parties, allot the rented,~ premises occupied by the appellant in favour of the respondent with the consent of the landlord. If no such consent is forth coming, the Prescribed Authority shall allot a reasonably suitable alternative accoTlllOOdation to the respondent for his ##### occupation on such terms as he may deem fit. We further direct that the order of eviction shall not be executed for six months in the event the respondent furnishes ' usual undertaking within four weeks from today. Both the parties shall, in the meantime, move to the Prescribed Authority, Varanasi, for permission to exchange their respective premises on the terms set out above. No costs. M.L.A. Appeal allCMed.