2004 (10) TMI 631 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Bona fide requirement of the landlord for the disputed property.
2. Comparative hardship between the landlord and tenant.
3. Consideration of subsequent events, particularly the death of the original applicants.
4. Applicability of Sub-section (7) of Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Bona Fide Requirement of the Landlord:

The Prescribed Authority found that the applicants required the suit property for conducting business, which was deemed bona fide. The District Judge and the High Court confirmed this finding. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, stating that the finding of bona fide requirement was a pure finding of fact and could not be disturbed.

2. Comparative Hardship:

The Prescribed Authority also determined that the applicants would suffer more hardship if the shop was not released in their favor than the hardship the opponents would face if evicted. This finding was also confirmed by the District Judge and the High Court. The Supreme Court upheld this conclusion, noting it was a factual determination that could not be overturned.

3. Consideration of Subsequent Events:

The Supreme Court highlighted that during the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court, both original applicants died, and their three married daughters were brought on record. The High Court had refused to consider this subsequent event, holding that the legality and validity of the eviction order should be tested based on the rights existing at the time of the application. The Supreme Court found this to be an error, emphasizing that courts have the power and duty to consider subsequent events to ensure complete justice. The Supreme Court cited various precedents to support this view, including Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor & General Traders and Hasmat Rai and Anr. v. Raghunath Prasad.

4. Applicability of Sub-section (7) of Section 21 of the Act:

The Supreme Court noted that Sub-section (7) of Section 21 allows legal representatives to prosecute an eviction application based on their own need if the original landlord dies during the pendency of the application. The High Court failed to consider this provision. The Supreme Court directed the High Court to re-evaluate the case, taking into account the subsequent event of the applicants' death and the provisions of Sub-section (7) of Section 21.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remitted the case back to the High Court. The High Court was instructed to consider the subsequent event of the applicants' death and the provisions of Sub-section (7) of Section 21 of the Act, and to pass an appropriate order after hearing the parties. The Supreme Court also addressed the issue of possession, noting conflicting claims and directing that the status quo be maintained until the High Court's final decision.