Krishna Kumar Maheshwari vs. Asha Gupta

Held

The Court held that there was no perversity or irrationality in the findings recorded by the authorities below, thus there was no scope for judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. Regarding Issue 1, the Court implicitly affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower authorities that the landlord's need for her son was bona fide and pressing, as the tenant's arguments were not found to be sufficient to overturn these findings. Regarding Issue 2, the Court's dismissal of the petition implies it found the comparative hardship favoured the landlord, aligning with the respondent's submissions that the tenant refused suitable alternatives and did not seek new accommodation. Regarding Issue 3, the Court extensively cited Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227, stating that the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its view for that of the fact-finding authorities unless there is a flagrant abuse of law or grave injustice. The writ petition was dismissed. However, the tenant was granted time until December 31, 2021, to vacate the shop, subject to furnishing an undertaking to pay damages of Rs. 10,000 per month and not inducting any other person.

Facts

The petitioner, a tenant, challenged a judgment of the Additional District Judge that dismissed his Rent Appeal and affirmed the order of the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority had allowed the respondent-landlord's application for release of a shop, under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The landlord sought the shop for her son, Arpit Gupta, to start an online trading/share business. The tenant disputed the landlord's bona fide need, claiming the landlord had sufficient alternative accommodation and that her husband and other sons were already engaged in business. The tenant also attempted to submit additional evidence, including a GST return, to prove he was conducting business from the premises. Both the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority found the landlord's need to be genuine and bona fide.

Key Issues

1. Whether the need of the landlord for settling her son is bona fide and pressing as per Section 21(1) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972? The petitioner argued that the landlord had sufficient accommodation and that the proceedings were collusive. The respondent argued that the tenant did not dispute the need but contested it on the ground of alternate shops, which the tenant himself found unsuitable. The respondent also contended that the landlord was not in possession of alternate accommodation and that comparative hardship favoured the landlord. 2. Whether the question of comparative hardship in regard to the disputed shop favours the landlord or the tenant? The petitioner's arguments on this point are not explicitly detailed, but it is implied he argued for the tenant. The respondent argued that the tenant refused suitable alternate shops and had not made efforts to find new accommodation during the pendency of the case, thus favouring the landlord. 3. Whether the finding recorded by both the authorities have any scope for judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? The petitioner sought judicial review of the concurrent findings of fact. The respondent argued that the High Court under Article 226/227 cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or irrational, citing several Supreme Court judgments.