Case: Purushottam Das Vs. Viii Additional Distt. and Sessions Judge, Allahabad and Others

The appellant and respondents 4 to 10 are the tenants in respect of certain premises situated in Allahabad. Respondent 3 who is the landlord, filed an application for eviction of the appellant and respondents 4 to 10 from the premises in their occupation on grounds specified in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 21,n (1) of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The claim for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement under clause (a) was also based on explanation (iv) to Section 21 of the Act. The prescribed authority held that both the grounds were made out by respondent 3 and the case also fell within explanation (iv) and it accordingly passed an order of eviction against the appellant and respondents 4 to 10. The appeal preferred by the appellant against the order of eviction was dismissed by the learned District Judge. The appellant thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Two questions in the main were raised before the High Court; one was that the explanation (iv) was inapplicable since the terms of that explanation were not satisfied; and the other was that the comparative hardships of the landlord and the tenant was not taken into account by the learned District Judge as well as by the prescribed authority in passing the order of eviction, though they were required to do so by reason of Rule 16 of the Rules framed under the Act. The High Court held that explanation (iv) was attracted in the present case and the bona fide requirement of respondent 3 must accordingly be held to be established. The High Court also held in the alternative that in any event the bona fide requirement of respondent 3 was established on the evidence on record. So far as the question of comparative hardship of the landlord and the tenant was concerned, the High Court took the view, following its Full Bench decision in Chandra Kumar Shah v. District Judge [1976 Allahabad Weekly Cases 50  : AIR 1976 All 328  ], that Rule 16 clause (1) was ultra vires and it was not necessary to consider the comparative hardship of the landlord and the tenant. The High Court in this view rejected the writ petition. Hence the present appeal by special leave obtained from this Court.

Reasoning:
The High Court ought in the circumstances, to have examined the contention of the appellant that the comparative hardship of the landlord and the tenant in the light of the factors set out in Rule 16 was not taken into account by the prescribed authority and the learned District Judge. It was contended on behalf of respondent 3 that, in fact, the learned District Judge as well as the prescribed authority had considered the question of comparative hardship of the landlord and the tenant and given a finding adverse to the appellant and this finding being a finding of fact, the High Court had refused to interfere with it. But this contention does not appear to be correct if we look at the judgment of the High Court. It is clear that the High Court refused to disturb the finding the learned District Judge in regard to this question because it felt that in view of the Full Bench decision in C. K. Shahs case it was not necessary to consider the question of comparative hardship. The judgment of the High Court will, therefore, have to be set aside and the case will have to be remanded to the High Court for the purpose of considering the contention of the appellant in regard to comparative hardship in the light of the amended Section 21 read with Rule 16.