- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Manoj Kumar And Another v. Munni Devi .
Factual and Procedural Background
Jawahar Lal, father of the present appellants, was the tenant of Shop No. 29/17, Namak Ki Mandi, Agra. After the shop was purchased by the respondent, Smt. Munni Devi, on 23-1-1976, Jawahar Lal continued as tenant until his death. The appellants inherited the tenancy and regularly paid rent to the respondent.
In 1987 the respondent filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (“the Act”) seeking release of the shop on two grounds: (i) the building was dilapidated and required demolition and reconstruction so that her husband could run a business; and (ii) one of her sons was unemployed and needed the premises to establish his livelihood. The appellants contested the application.
The Prescribed Authority dismissed the release application on 15-4-1989. On appeal, the VIIth Additional District Judge, Agra, allowed the release on 13-9-1996, directing the respondent to pay one year’s rent as compensation to the appellants. The appellants challenged that order by writ petition, but the Allahabad High Court dismissed the petition on 26-7-2002. The present appeal has been filed before the Supreme Court by special leave against that dismissal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the landlord’s release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act was maintainable in the absence of the six-month prior notice mandated by the first proviso to that sub-section.
- Whether the findings of the Appellate Authority regarding the landlord’s bona fide requirement and comparative hardship were sustainable.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Arguments
- No six-month notice was served prior to filing the release application; the application was therefore not maintainable under the mandatory language of the first proviso to Section 21(1)(a).
- Relied on Martin & Harris Ltd. v. Adj, (1998) 1 SCC 732, where this Court held that the notice requirement is mandatory.
- Contended that the landlord lacked bona fide need and that the appellants would suffer greater hardship if evicted after conducting business in the shop for many years.
Respondent’s Arguments
- Six-month notice had in fact been served on 17-2-1983; copies of the notice and reply were adduced in appellate proceedings and duly proved through witnesses.
- Even if notice were absent, the requirement is directory, not mandatory, relying on Anwar Hasan Khan v. Mohd. Shafi, (2001) 8 SCC 540.
- The Appellate Authority’s findings—bona fide need, greater hardship to landlord, and compliance with the notice requirement—were arrived at after thorough examination of evidence and should not be disturbed in a special-leave appeal under Article 136.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Martin & Harris Ltd. v. Adj, (1998) 1 SCC 732 | Held that six-month notice under the first proviso to Section 21(1)(a) is mandatory. | Cited by appellants; Supreme Court found it unnecessary to decide the issue because factual finding established that notice had been served. |
| Anwar Hasan Khan v. Mohd. Shafi, (2001) 8 SCC 540 | Interpreted the notice requirement as conditional upon initiation of proceedings within three years; suggested it is not mandatory in every case. | Invoked by respondent; Court did not reach the legal question after accepting the factual finding of notice. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court examined the Appellate Authority’s record, which showed that during the appeal the landlord produced:
- Copy of notice dated 17-2-1983 and the tenant’s reply dated 8-3-1983.
- Affidavit of one Brij Mohan and testimony of Rakesh Kumar Bansal (clerk of the issuing advocate) establishing dispatch of notice.
After cross-examination of witnesses by the tenants, the Appellate Authority expressly found that the statutory notice requirement had been complied with. The High Court affirmed this factual finding. The Supreme Court held that, in light of concurrent findings on service of notice, it was unnecessary to pronounce upon the legal debate over whether the proviso’s notice requirement is mandatory or directory.
On the merits, the Court accepted the Appellate Authority’s conclusions that:
- The landlord’s need was bona fide and genuine.
- The landlord would face greater hardship than the tenants if the release were refused, particularly as the tenants had several other vacant shops.
Finding no perversity or legal error, the Supreme Court declined to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Dismissed with Costs.
The appellants must vacate the premises by 31-7-2005, subject to filing the usual undertaking within one month. The decision affirms the release order in favour of the landlord but turns on factual determinations rather than establishing new law; hence, it carries limited precedential significance beyond the parties involved.
G.P Mathur, J.— Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 26-7-2002 of the Allahabad High Court by which the writ petition preferred by the appellants was dismissed.
3. Jawahar Lal, the father of the appellants was a tenant of a shop bearing No. 29/17, Namak Ki Mandi, Agra and it was purchased by the respondent Smt Munni Devi on 23-1-1976. After the death of Jawahar Lal, the appellants being his sons inherited the tenancy and started paying rent to the respondent. The respondent filed an application in the year 1987 seeking release of the shop on two grounds, namely, that the building was in a dilapidated condition and is required for the purpose of demolition and new construction wherein her husband will carry on the business after new construction had been made. The second ground pleaded was that one of her sons was unemployed and was sitting idle and he would also establish his business in the shop. The appellants contested the release application on various grounds. The prescribed authority dismissed the release application by the judgment and order dated 15-4-1989. The respondent then preferred an appeal which was allowed by the VIIth Additional District Judge, Agra by the judgment and order dated 13-9-1996 and the shop was released in favour of the respondent and she was directed to pay rent of one year as compensation to the appellants. The appellants challenged the aforesaid judgment by filing a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court which was dismissed on 26-7-2002.
4. Shri Siddharth Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellants, has submitted that the landlord had applied for release of the shop under the tenancy of the appellants under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the first proviso to the said sub-section requires giving of notice by the landlord to the tenant not less than six months before filing of such application and as in the present case no such notice had been given, the release application was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Learned counsel has submitted that the aforesaid provision has come up for consideration before this Court in Martin & Harris Ltd. v. VIth ADJ (1998) 1 SCC 732 wherein it was held that the requirement of giving prior notice was mandatory. Challenge has also been raised to the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority in favour of the landlord and it has been urged that she had no bona fide requirement of the property and further the appellants would suffer greater hardship in the event of release of the shop in which they were carrying on business for a long time.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that six months' notice had in fact been given in the present case before filing the release application. He has also submitted that the provision of giving six months' notice before filing the release application is not mandatory and, therefore, the release application cannot be held to be not maintainable even if no such notice is given by the landlord. In support of this submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on a later decision of this Court in Anwar Hasan Khan v. Mohd. Shafi (2001) 8 SCC 540 wherein it was held that the period contemplated for not initiating the eviction proceedings against a tenant on the grounds specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 was three years and in no case more than three years and six months and any proceeding initiated for release of the building on the aforesaid ground after the expiry of the period does not require the service of six months' prior notice. Learned counsel has further submitted that after a thorough examination of the evidence on record the Appellate Authority had recorded clear findings that the need of the landlord was bona fide and genuine and further that in the event the shop was not released the landlord would suffer greater hardship. It has thus been submitted that the judgment of the Appellate Authority is perfectly sound and the writ petition filed by the appellants was rightly dismissed by the High Court and as such there is absolutely no occasion for this Court to interfere in a special leave petition filed under Article 136 of the Constitution.
6. The judgment of the Appellate Authority shows that the respondent (landlord) moved an application for adducing additional evidence in appeal, which was allowed on 9-4-1993. The respondent filed the copy of the notice dated 17-2-1983 sent by Shri Jethanand, Advocate on her behalf and also the copy of the reply dated 8-3-1983 sent by Shri Ram Chander Bhakru, Advocate. The aforesaid documents were proved by Shri Rakesh Kumar Bansal, Clerk of Shri Jethanand, Advocate. The respondent also filed affidavit of Shri Brij Mohan. Thereafter, the tenant summoned Bangali Mal (husband of the respondent, Smt Munni Devi), Brij Mohan and Rakesh Kumar Bansal and they were cross-examined. The Appellate Authority, after considering the aforesaid evidence, has recorded a clear finding that a notice was sent by the landlord before filing the release application and the requirement of the first proviso to Section 21(1)(a) of the Act had been complied with. The filing of the additional evidence before the Appellate Authority finds mention in the writ petition which was filed by the appellants in the High Court.
7. In view of the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority and also by the High Court that a notice, as contemplated by the first proviso to Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, had been sent by the landlord we do not consider it necessary to decide the legal issue raised by the learned counsel for the appellants and the same may be done in a more appropriate case.
8. The Appellate Authority has recorded a clear finding that the need of the landlord was bona fide and genuine and further that the landlord will suffer greater hardship in the event of rejection of the release application than that which will be suffered by the tenants in the event of grant of the application as they had several other vacant shops in their occupation. The Appellate Authority has also recorded a finding that the requirement of the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act had been complied with as a notice was given before filing of the release application. The High Court, therefore, rightly declined to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Authority while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
9. There is no merit in the present appeal which is hereby dismissed with costs.
10. The appellants are granted time till 31-7-2005 to vacate the building subject to their filing the usual undertaking within one month.
Alert