Legal Question in Landlord & Tenant Law in India

The landlord has to show the court reasonable and bonafide requirement of the house in which the tenant lives.

07.01.2013

Dear Sir / Madam,

In the case of Vishwanath versus IVth Addl. District Judge, Etawah and others, reported in 1984(1) A.R.C. 459 it has been held that Rule 8 of the U.P. Urban (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules 1972, requires that notice is to be served on landlord and order passed in the proceedings cannot be set aside on the ground of non-compliance of Rule-8. It has further been held that order passed in allotment proceeding after remand cannot be set aside on the ground that notice under Rule 8 was notice issued. The purpose of intimating the landlord is that the premises may not be declared vacant without knowledge to him, so that in case the landlord desires, he or she may apply for release.

Senior Counsel MM Mohan in a similar hearing argues -

Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short, `the U.P Act�) for eviction of the respondent/tenant on the ground that the hardship appellants would suffer by not occupying their own premises would be far greater than the hardship the respondent would suffer by having to move out to another place. We are mindful of the fact that whenever the tenant is asked to move out of the premises some hardship is inherent. We have noted that the respondent is in occupation of the premises for a long time. But in our opinion, in the facts of this case that circumstance cannot be the sole determining factor. That hardship can be mitigated by granting him longer period to move out of the premises in his occupation so that in the meantime he can make alternative arrangement. 17. In the view that we have taken, the appeal succeeds.

Regards,

FCA Prashant Chavan

Mumbai

(You can also mail me for any further on-line advice at [email protected])