CourtKutchehry.com
Supreme CourtDivision Bench

Mehmood Rahmat Ullah Khan and Another vs Niyaz Ahmad Khan

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 23 February 2011 · Citation: (2011) 3 CHN 121 Supp : (2011) 112 CLT 127 : (2011) 2 RCR(Rent) 475 : (2011) 3 SCR 202

HON’BLE JUDGES
Markandey Katju, J · Gyan Sudha Mishra, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 — Section 21, 21(1)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Appeal No''s. 1073 and 1264 of 2009
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

14 paragraphs · 354 words

Civil Appeal No. 1264 of 2009

1.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2.

This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 8.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Allahabad.

3.

The Appellant herein is a landlord of premises in question and the Respondent is the tenant. The Appellant filed a Petition u/s 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 Appellate Court has upheld the finding that there is no bonafide need of the premises of the landlord.

4.

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 increasing the rent.

5.

It is well settled that a High Court in Writ Petition cannot interfere with the finding of fact, regarding bonafide need.

6.

We are also of the opinion that u/s 21 , there is no question of enhancement of rent. That may be done under some other provision of the Act.

7.

Accordingly, we dispose of this appeal with the direction that the impugned judgment is set aside and judgment of First Appellate Court rejecting the Petition u/s 21 is upheld. The direction increasing rent is set aside.

8.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Civil Appeal No. 1073 of 2009

9.

This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated8.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Allahabad.

10.

The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence we are not repeating the same here.

11.

u/s 21 of U.P. Urban Buildings Act, 1972, the prescribed authority can either allow the Petition for eviction of the tenant or it can refuse to do so. It cannot enhance the rent under those proceedings. Hence, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court.

12.

The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.