2009 (10) TMI 955 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Bonafide requirement of the landlord.
2. Comparative hardship of the parties.
3. Effect of subsequent developments on the case.

Summary:

Bonafide Requirement of the Landlord:
The landlord filed an application u/s 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for the release of a shop for his son's Chartered Accountancy office. The Prescribed Authority rejected the application, stating the landlord had sufficient space on the first floor. The Additional District Judge allowed the appeal, recognizing the landlord's need for the shop. The High Court remanded the case to consider subsequent developments, such as the death of the landlord's parents and the acquisition of additional property.

Comparative Hardship of the Parties:
The Prescribed Authority did not consider comparative hardship, as it found no bonafide requirement. The Appellate Court, however, held that the tenant would not face much hardship if the shop was released, given the tenant's alternative space. The High Court remanded the case to reassess comparative hardship in light of new developments.

Effect of Subsequent Developments:
The High Court set aside the Appellate Court's decision, citing subsequent developments like the death of the landlord's parents and the acquisition of additional property. The Supreme Court noted that subsequent developments are relevant and need to be examined through evidence. The Court emphasized that the litigation, pending for 15 years, should not be prolonged further.

Supreme Court's Decision:
The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have ordered a limited remand to the Appellate Court to consider the effect of subsequent developments on the bonafide requirement and comparative hardship. The High Court should keep the writ petition pending and decide it after receiving evidence and findings from the Appellate Court. The landlord is allowed to amend the original release application to include the requirement of his grown-up children.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the writ petition, and directed the High Court to decide the case within six months, considering the subsequent developments and without unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed to the extent indicated, with no order as to costs.