Tenant Should Be At The Pleasure Of Landlord, Must Release Property When Landlord Requires It For Bonafide Personal Use: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has held that a tenant is usually at the pleasure of the landlord and will have to release the property if the landlord so desires. It was held that the Court must see if the need of the landlord is bonafide before ruling against the tenant.“A tenant should be at the pleasure of landlord in a sense that as and when the landlord needs the property for his personal use, he will have to release. The court has to just see, whether the need is bonafide one or not,” held Justice Ajit Kumar. The Court rejected a petition by the tenant, holding that once bonafide need and comparative hardship are in favour of the landlord, no interference is required under Article 227 of the Constitution.Case BackgroundA release application for two shops was filed by the landlord on ground of personal need. The landlord intended to open a shop to carry out motorcycle and scooter repairing works on the premises of the aforesaid shops, as he had been asked to vacate his previous place of work by the landlord of those premises.The Prescribed Authority allowed the release application, holding that bonafide need and comparative hardship were in favour of the landlord. The appeal by the tenant was rejected. Tenant approached the High Court. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Prescribed Authority failed to give due consideration to alternative accommodation being available to the respondent/landlord. This alternative accommodation could have been used to set up the repair shop under Section 16(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972.It was submitted that the landlord deliberately concealed existence of a third shop on the premises. It was submitted that the landlord had stated in a partition suit that the premises had three shops. The fact that third shop was still available for use had not been dealt with by the Prescribed Authority when deciding comparative hardship even though it was duty-bound to do so. Due to this reason, the order impugned was manifestly erroneous in law and fact.It was further submitted that mere wish of the landlord to acquire the tenanted premises cannot be a bonafide requirement, as requirement implies necessity. As the material fact of availability of a third shop was concealed, there was clearly no bonafide requirement on part of the landlord.Counsel for the respondent contended that it was established through evidence that the third shop contained a staircase, and the same was being used as a store/godown. It therefore could not be said that this shop could be used for scooter and motorcycle repairs.High Court VerdictThe Court noted that the question of alternative accommodation, while mandatory for the authority to decide, would be answered on the facts of each case. This is so because the answer depends on what kind of alternative accommodation is available, its suitability, along with other factors such as the size of the landlord's family, whether the accommodation is sufficient to conduct the landlord's business, etc., held the Court. The Court observed that the Prescribed Authority will be slow in rejecting the release application only on the basis of alternative accommodation referred to by tenant being available. It was held that the landlord shall always be the best arbiter to decide which accommodation shall suit his business best. Further, it was observed that the act of letting out a part of property on rent should not turn it into an irrevocable tenancy forever.Examining the order by the Prescribed Authority, the Court held that having a stair case in the third shop meant that family members would be using it for going to the first floor or roof top. It meant exposure to strangers during working hours of the repair shop, which would not be proper. It was held that the landlord would be in the best position to decide which accommodation would be suitable for his business. Regarding the order by the Appellate Authority, the Court observed that the Authority considered the width of the road in front of both shops to determine suitability of the two shops, and found that the third shop was not suitable to carry out auto repair works and sale of auto spare parts at the same time.Consequently, it was held that even under Section 16(1)(d) of the Rules, 1972, findings returned by the Prescribed Authority, affirmed in appeal, were sound. The Court held that there was no error apparent on the face of the record or any manifest error of law and no interference under Article 227 was warranted.Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.Case Title: Zulfikar Ahmad And 7 Others vs. Jahangir Alam 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 15 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6479 of 2021]Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 15Click Here To Read/Download Order

Tenant Should Be At The Pleasure Of Landlord, Must Release Property When Landlord Requires It For Bonafide Personal Use: Allahabad HC

Upasna Agrawal

Tags