OM PRAKASH c v. BllAGWAN DAS MARCH 10, 1986 [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, 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, 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) OM PRAKASH v. BHAGWAN DAS [SEN, J. ] 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 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
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 Lett- ing, 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 displac- ed 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. c [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 evic- tion under Section 13 (1) (g) o·f the Act does not
cause any hardship to either side. The considera- tions 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, inter-
preting 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 consider-
ing 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. ] 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 find- ing 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 refusal of the application of the landlord under s. 21 (1) (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 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 c
c [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.