R.K. Kapoor vs S.P. Chadha & Another

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

The petitioner is a tenant of a premises which admittedly comes under the purview of Act No.13 of 1972. The landlord in the year 2016 filed an

application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act No.13 of 1972 for release of the accommodation in his favour before the Prescribed Authority. The bona

fide need which was set up at the relevant time was that the landlord/applicant resides at “Chakrataâ€, which is a hilly area and premises which is

situated at E.C. Road, Dehradun is required for establishment of his grown up son and daughter to establish them in business. During the pendency of

the suit admittedly, the landlord suffered heart attack in the year 2017 and she sought additional ground for release which is heart ailment, for which

she had to undergo a procedure at Fortis Hospital, Dehradun. Consequently, she sought an amendment to raise an additional ground of heart ailment

as she has been advised by the Doctors to reside in a plain area. This application has been accepted by the Prescribed Authority vide order dated

31.8.2018 which has been challenged by the petitioner before this Court.

It is a settled position of law that under Section 21 (1)

(a) of the Act No.13 of 1972 accommodation can be released in favour of the landlord on consideration of his bona fide needs, subject to the

comparable hardship which is a subsequent consideration to be examined by the Prescribed Authority.

As far as bona fide need is concerned, the same can always change, even during pendency of the application, under Section 21 (1) (a) of Act

No.13 of 1972. Admittedly the landlord had suffered a heart attack during this period and she has been advised to reside in a plain area and if for this

purpose the Prescribed Authority has allowed the amendment application of the landlord, this Court finds nothing wrong in that order.

Consequently, the writ petition fails and it is hereby dismissed in limine.