Bishan Chand v. Vth Adj

Factual and Procedural Background

The matter arises from an ejectment suit filed by a landlord. The Vth Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr, acting as the appellate court, disposed of the appeal and recorded a finding on comparative hardship, holding that the hardship to both the landlord and the tenant would be the same. Despite this, an ejectment order in favor of the landlord stood, and the High Court confirmed that order. Special leave to appeal was granted. Upon hearing counsel on both sides, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and remanded the matter to the District Judge for fresh consideration.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether an ejectment order can be sustained when the appellate court has found that comparative hardship to the landlord and the tenant is the same, absent additional circumstances justifying preference for the landlord.
2. Whether the appellate court erred by failing to consider Rule 16(2) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 in assessing comparative hardship.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

• The Court noted that the appellate court had made a clear finding that comparative hardship to the landlord and the tenant was equal. The Supreme Court observed that, if that is the finding, then in the absence of any additional circumstances indicating that preference should be shown to the landlord, an ejectment order in his favor could not be made.
• The Court further found that Rule 16(2) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 had not been considered at all by the appellate court. This omission was significant because the issue of comparative hardship must be assessed in light of that rule.
• Because the High Court had confirmed the appellate order despite these defects, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order.
• For proper adjudication, the Court remanded the case to the District Judge with a specific direction to reconsider the question of comparative hardship in the light of Rule 16(2). The Court expressly permitted the appellate court to take into account:
  • Facts relating to the earlier agreement;
  • The offer of the appellant before the Supreme Court to give back his own shop to the respondent;
  • The equities arising in the case.
• To ensure a complete record on remand, the Court allowed the parties to lead additional evidence by way of affidavits before the appellate court.

Holding and Implications

Holding: Special leave to appeal was granted. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and REMANDED the matter to the District Judge for disposal of the appeal in accordance with law, with a direction to consider comparative hardship under Rule 16(2) of the U.P. Urban Buildings Rules. Parties were allowed to file additional affidavits. There was no order as to costs.

Implications: The immediate effect is that the appellate proceedings will be reheard by the District Judge with a mandated focus on comparative hardship in accordance with Rule 16(2), taking into account the earlier agreement, the appellant’s offer to return his own shop to the respondent, and relevant equities. The order clarifies that where comparative hardship is found to be equal, an ejectment order should not be made absent additional circumstances favoring the landlord. No broader precedent beyond these directions is set by this remand order.