Holding

The bona‑fide requirement for eviction is to be determined as of the date of the landlord’s application; later events cannot overturn it unless they wholly eclipse the original need.

Summary

The landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, claiming the premises were needed for his son’s medical clinic and his own radio‑repair business. The prescribed authority ordered eviction in 1982; the order was upheld by the appellate court and later stayed by the High Court, where the matter lingered for fifteen years before the stay was lifted and the tenant was given six months to vacate. The tenant subsequently sought review, contending that the landlord’s son had only joined the Provincial Medical Service twelve years after the petition and was posted far away, thus the original bona‑fide requirement no longer existed. The Supreme Court held that the decisive date for assessing the landlord’s bona‑fide requirement is the date of the eviction application, and later developments can overturn it only if they completely eclipse the original need. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the eviction order.

Issues considered

Whether subsequent events, such as the landlord’s son joining the Provincial Medical Service after the filing of the eviction petition, can defeat the landlord’s claim of bona‑fide requirement under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act.
Whether the bona‑fide requirement must be judged as of the date of the eviction application or can be re‑evaluated in view of later developments.

Legislation cited

U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972s. 21(1)(a)

Subjects

evictionbona fide requirementSection 21(1)(a)rent controllandlord-tenant disputesubsequent eventslong pendency

Judgment

GAYA PRASAD A
v.
SH. PRADEEPSRIVASTAVA

FEBRUARY 7, 2001

[K.T. THOMAS ANp DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] B

Rent and Eviction :

U.P Urban Building (Regulation of le/ling, Rent and Eviction) Act,
1972-Section 21 (J) (a)-Eviction Petition-Bona fide Requirement- C
Litigation for 23 years-Order of eviction-Plea that subsequent joining of
medical service by landlord's son overshadowing the bona fide requirement
of the premises for housing his medical clinic-Plea negatived-Held, the
crucial date for deciding as to the bona fides of the requirement of the
landlord is the date of his application for eviction-Every subsequent
development during the post petition period cannot be taken into account D
for judging such bona fides-The subsequent events to overshadow the
genuineness of the need must be of such nature and of such a dimension that
the need propounded by the petitioning party should have been completely
eclipsed by such subsequent events.

Practice and Procedure :
E

Long pending matters-Evolution of some concrete schemes by High
Court for their speedy disposal~Need for, emphasised.

Landlord/respondent filed an application under Section 2l(l)(a) lifthe
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 F
for eviction of his tenant/appellant. The eviction was sought on the ground
that the building was needed for housing his son's clinic who had passed his
medical examination and that he himself having recently retired wanted to
start a radio repairing work using a portion of the building. The Prescribed
Authority allowed the application and ordered eviction of the tenant/appellant. G
Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the Appellate Court which was dismissed.
Tenant/appellant then filed a writ petition. before High Court challenging his
order of eviction. The High Court granted stay of operation of the eviction
order whereafter the matter was kept pending for fifteen years before the
same was dismissed. The tenant I appellant was, however, granted six months
923 H
924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001} I S.C.R.

A tiine to vacate the premises. Appellant again moved the.High Court for review
of its order on the ground that the landlord's son, for whom the eviction was
sought, joined the Provincial Medical Service after 12 years of the institution
of the present proceeding. The said review petition was, however, dismissed.
Hence the present appeals.

B

-
On behalf of the tenant/appellant, it was contended that subsequent
developments may also be taken into account in eviction proceeding,
particularly when the eviction was sought by a landlord on the ground that he ~.
bona fide needed the building for his own use or for the use of any member
of his family.
c Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD : I. The subsequent events pleaded and highlighted by the
appellant are too insufficient to overshadow the bona fide need concurrently
found by the fact finding courts. During 23 years after the landlord moved
D for eviction on the ground that his son needed the building, neither the landlord
nor his son is expected to remain idle without doing any work, lest, joining
any n~w assignment or starting any new work would be at the peril of
forfeiting his requirement to occupy the building. The crucial date for deciding
as to the bona fides of the requirement of the landlord is the date of his
application for eviction. If every subsequent development during the post
E petition period is to be taken into account for judging the bona fides of the
requirement pleaded by the landlord, there would perhaps be no end so long
as the unfortunate situation in the litigative slow process system subsists. It
is a stark reality that the longer the life of the litigation the more would be
the number of developments sprouting up during the long interregnum. It is
pernicious and unjust to shut the door before an applicant just on the eve of
F his reaching the finale, after passing through all the previous levels of the
litigation, merely on the ground that certain developments occurred pendente
lite, because the opposite party succeeded in prolonging the matter for such
unduly long period. The subsequent events to overshadow the genuineness of
the need must be of such nature and of such a dimension that the need
G propounded by the petitioning party should have been completely eclipsed by
such subsequent events. 1930-F; 928-A; 927-G-H; 928-B; 928-C; 929-CI

Ramesh Kumar v. Kesha Ram, 11992) Suppl. 2 SCC 623; Kamleshwar
Prashad v. Pradumanju Agarwal, 119971 4 SCC 413; Pasupuleti
Venkateswarlu v. Motor and General Traders, 119751 I SCC 770; Hasmat
H Rai v. Raghunath Prasad, 119811 3 SCC 103 and Ansuyaben Kantilal Bhatt
-f

GA YA PRASADv. P. SRIVASTAVA [THOMAS, J.] 925
v. Rashikla/ Manila/ Shah, 11997) 5 SCC 457, relied on. A
2. High Courts should evolve some concrete schemes for winching to
the fore long pending matters, lying in torpidity at the bottom of the crammed
list of pending cases in the High Courts after passing the initial orders,
keeping the operative part of decrees in abeyance. It is worth considering
whether a cell can be set up in each of such High Courts where the piles of B
backlog are a stirring problem, to pick out such cases to be brought fo the
notice of the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned so that he could take
appropriate steps in the matter. If a citizen is told that once you resort to
legal procedure for realisation of your urgent need, you have to wait for 23 to
30 years, what else is it if not to inevitably encourage and force him to resort C
to extra legal measures for realising the required reliefs. A Republic,
governed by rule of law, cannot afford to compel its citizens to resort to such
extra legal means which are very often contra legal means with counter-
productive results on the maintenance of law and order in the country.
[930-G-H; 931-A; 931-B-CI
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1071 of
2001.

~ From the judgment and Order dated 8.9.2000 of the Allahabad High
Court in C.M.R.P. No. 38164 of2000.
E
With

Civil Appeal No. 1072 of2001.

P.K. Jain for the Appellant.

S.B. Sanyal, Manoj K. Mishra and N.S. Bisht for the Respondent. F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

THOMAS, J. Leave granted.

This case presents a sample scenario of the tonnenting plight of an G
average litigant who approaches the court with all expectations of getting
relief for his urgent need. But the snail paced litigation creeping through all
the tiers of the judicial hierarchical forums would have frustrated all his
expectations, though others could admire the tenacity with which he persisted
with the cause. Twenty three years ago, the litigant in this case wanted
accommodation for his son, who then became a medical graduate, to start a H
926 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200 I] I S.C.R.

A clinic so that from the stage of a fledgling in the profession of medicine he
could fly higher up. His father who owns the building moved for eviction of "*I:'
the tenant from the building for the said purpose. Although he won the battle
at all tiers the urgently needed eviction is till now eluding him as a mirage.

Appellant is the tenant of a shop building situate at Khalsa Gali, Agra.
B In 1978, the respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of
the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972
(for short 'the U.P. Act') on a twin need. One is that his son who passed his
medical examination wanted to carry on medical practice and this building was
needed for housing his clinic. The other is, the landlord himself had just
C retired from Railway service and he too did not want to waste his time, talent
and energy and hence he wanted to start a radio repairing work which he
thought could be performed by using a portion of the building. The first
forum, called the Prescribed Authority, where the application was filed, found ~
the claim bona fide and ordered eviction on 25.3.1982. It was further found
by the said authority that the tenant has alternative accommodation in the
D same city for doing his business.

Appellant filed an appeal but it took only 3 years for the appellate court
to dismiss the appeal on I 0.10.1985. Though three years of pendency of an
appeal is too much for a litigant it is not considered unduly long by the
standards now developed regarding the pendency position of cases in the
E courts in India.

The lengthiest leap which appellant secured was thereafter when he
approached the High Court. He filed a writ petition challenging the order of
eviction before the High Court of Allahabad in 1985 and the High Court after
entertaining the writ petition granted stay of operation of the eviction order.
F With the said initial dosage administered by the High Court at the entry stage,
the hibernated writ petition seemed to have been consigned to records where
it remained in torpidity for a record period of 15 years. The dust stricken writ
petition was taken up and disposed of only thereafter and the High Court
found no ground to interfere with the order challenged before it. Appellant
G who gained such a record time did not hesitate to make a plea to the High
Court to grant him six months' time more to vacate and that too was acceded
to on a condition that appellant should give an undertaking before original
authority that he would vacate the premises within six months.

The appellant who lost at all levels and yet succeeded during all these
H years by keeping the order of eviction at bay, lately discovered that the
GAY A PRASAD v. P. SRIVASTAVA [THOMAS, J.] 927
landlord's sori, for whom the eviction was sought, joined the Provincial A
Medical Service after 12 years of the institution of the lis. On that premise
appellant ventured to move the same High Court once again, and this time
for a review of the order. However, the review petition was dismissed by the
High Court as per its order which is also impugned now.

In the appeal petition filed in this Court appellant stated that the son B
of the landlord who joined the Provincial Medical Service is posted at a place
situated 200 kilometers from Agra, whereat the building is situate, and that
he is now getting a pay of Rs. l 5,000 per month.

The point sought to be urged is that, subsequent developments may C
also be taken into account in eviction proceedings, particularly when the
eviction is sought by a landlord on the ground that he bona fide needs the
building for his own use or for the use of any member of his family.

Section 21(1) of the U.P. Act deals with proceedings for release of
building under occupation of tenant. Clause (a) of the sub-section alone is D
germane in the present proceedings. The said clause is, therefore, extracted
below:

"The prescribed authority may, on an application of the landlord in
that behalf, order the eviction of a tenant from the building under E
tenancy or any specified part thereof if it is satisfied that any of the
following grounds exists namely-

(a) required either in its existing form or after demolition and new
construction by the landlord for occupation by himself or any
member of his family, or any person for whose benefit it is held F
by him, either for residential purposes or that the building is
bona fide for purposes of any profession, trade or calling, or
where the landlord is the trustee of a public charitable trust, for
the objects of the trust;"

We have no doubt that the crucial date for deciding as to the bona fides G
of the requirement of the landlord is the date of his application for eviction.
The antecedent days may perhaps have utility for him to reach the said crucial
date of consideration. If every subsequent development during the post
petition period is to be taken into account for judging the bona fides of the
requirement pleaded by the landlord there would perhaps be no end so long
as the unfortunate situation in our litigative slow process system subsists. H
928 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] I S.C.R.

A During 23 years after the landlord moved for eviction on the ground that his
son needed the building, neither the landlord nor his son is expected to
remain idle without doing any work, lest, joining any new assignment or
starting any new work would be at the peril of forfeiting his requirement to
occupy the building. It is a stark reality that the longer is the life of the
B litigation the more would be the number of developments sprouting up during
the long interregnum. If a young entrepreneur decides to launch a new
enterprise and on that ground be or his father seeks eviction of a tenant from
the building, tbe proposed enterprise would not get faded out by subsequent
developments during the traditional lengthy longevity of the litigation. His
need may get dusted, patina might stick on its surface, nonetheless the need
C would remain intact. All that is needed is to erase the patina and see the
gloss. It is pernicious, and we may say, unjust to shut the door before an
applicant just on the eve of his reaching the finale, after passing through all
the previous levels of the litigation, merely on the ground that certain
developments occurred pendente lite, because the opposite party succeeded
in prolonging the matter for such unduly long period.
D
We cannot forget that while considering the bona fides of the need of
the landlord tbe crucial date is the date of petition. In Remesh Kumar v. Kesha
Ram, (1992) Suppl. 2 SCC 623 a two-Judge Bench of this Court (M.N.
Venkatachalia, J., as he then was, and N.M. Kasliwal, J.) pointed out that the
E normal rule is that rights and obligations of the parties are to be determined
as they were when the !is commenced and the only exception is that the court
is not precluded from moulding the reliefs appropriately in consideration of
subsequent events provided such events had an impact on those rights and
obligations. What the learned Chief Justice observed therein is this:
/

"The normal rule is that in any litigation the rights and obligations of
F
the parties are adjudicated upon as they obtain at the commencement
of the lis. But this is subject to an exception. Wherever subsequent
events of fact or law which have a material bearing on the entitlement
of the parties to relief or on aspects which bear on the moulding of
the relief occur, the court is not precluded from taking a 'cautious
G cognisance' of the subsequent changes of fact and law to mould the
relief."

This Court reiterated the same principle in Kam/eshwar Prasad v.
Pradumanju Agarwal, [ 1997) 4 SCC 413 that the crucial date normally is the
date of filing the petition. In that case, a two-Judge Bench (K. Ramaswamy
H and G.B. Patlanaik, JJ.) has held that r.ven the subsequent event of death
GA YA PRASADv. P. SRIVASTAVA [THOMAS, J.] 929
of the l.andlord who wanted to start a busine.ss in the tenanted premises is A
not sufficient to dislodge the bona fide need established by him earlier. This
is what Pattanaik J. has observed for the Bench:

"That apart, the fact that the landlord needed the premises in question
for starting a business which fact has been found by the appellate
authority, in the eye of law, it must be that on the day of application B
for eviction which is the crucial date, the tenant incurred the liability
of being evicted from the premises. Even if the landlord died during
the pendency of the writ petition in the High court the bona fide need
cannot be said to have lapsed as the business in question can be
carried on by his widow or any other son."
c
ln our opinion, the subsequent events to overshadow the genuineness
.r· of the need must be of such nature and of such a dimension that the need
propounded by the petitioning party· should ha;ve been completely eclipsed
by such subsequent events. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Pasupuleti
Venkateswarlu V. Motor and General Traders, [1975] l sec 770 which pointed D
to the need for re-moulding the reliefs on the strength
, of subsequent events
affecting the cause of action in the field of rent control litigation, forewarned
that cognizance of such subsequent events should be taken very cautiously.
This is what learned Judges of the Bench said .then:

"We affinn the proposition that for making the right or remedy claimed E
by the party just and meaningful as also legally and factually in
accord with the current realities, the court can, and in many cases
must, take cautious cognisance of events and developments subsequent
to the institution of the proceedings provided the rules of fairness to
both sides are scrupulously obeyed."
F
The next three-Judge Bench of th is Court, which approved and followed
the above decision, in Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad, [1981] 3 SCC 103
has taken care to emphasise that the subsequent events should have "wholly
satisfied" the requirement of the party who petitioned for eviction on the
ground of personal requirement. The relevant passage is extracted below: G
"Therefore, it is now incontrovertible that where possession is sought
for personal requirement it would be correct to say that the requirement
pleaded by the landlord must not only exist on the date of the action
but must subsist till the final decree or an order for eviction is made.
If in the meantime events have cropped up which would show that H
930 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] IS.CR.

A 1he landlord's requirement is wholly salisfied lhen in thal case his
·~
action must fail and in such a silualion it is incorrect 10 say thal as
decree or order for eviction is passed againsl the lenanl he cannol
invite the court to take into consideration subsequent events."
(Emphasis supplied)

B The judicial tardiness, for which unfortunately our system has acquired
notoriety, causes the lis to creep through the line for long long years from
the start to the ultimate termini, is a malady afflicting the system. During this
long interval many many events are bound to take place which might happen
in relation to the parties as well as the subject matter of the !is. If the cause
C of action is to be submerged in such subsequent events on account of the
malady of the system it shatters the confidence of the litigant, despite the
impainnent already caused.

Of course a two-Judge Bench (K. Ramaswamy and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.)
pointed out in another case Ansuyaben Kantilal Bhatt v. Rashiklal Manila!
D Shah, [1997] 5 sec 457 that the pendency of a !is for a record period of thirty
one years has transfonned a middle aged landlord to advanced stage of
gerenry and at that stage he could not start a new business venture. After
lamenting over the system which caused a whopping delay of thirty-one
years the Bench made two directions. The first was that the son of the
E landlord who by that time had four and a half years more to go for reaching
the superannuation age could consider starting the business in the tenanted
premises after retirement. The second was that in the meanwhile the rent for
the building would stand enhanced from Rs. I01 to R>.3500 per month.

Considering all the aforesaid decisions, we are of the definite view that -1.
F the subsequent events pleaded and highlighted by the appellant are too
insufficient to overshadow the bona fide need concurrently found by the fact
finding courts.

We wish to add, as an epilogue, that this case can provide a catalytic
G agent for the High Courts to evolve some concrete schemes for winching to
the fore similar long pending matters, lying in torpidity at the bottom of the
crammed list of pending cases in the High Courts after passing the initial
orders, keeping the operative part of decrees in abeyance. It is worth
considering whether a cell can be set up in each of such High Courts where
the piles of backlog are a stirring problem, to pick out such cases to be
H brought to the notice of the Chief justice of the High Court concerned so that
GAYA PRASAD v. P. SRIVASTAVA [THOMAS, .I.] 931
he cou Id take appropriate steps in the matter. A
The above is not an advice, but only a suggestion. If any alternative
suggestion would appear better the same can be resorted to. The time is
running out for doing something to solve the problem which has already
grown into monstrous form. If a citizen is told that once you resort to legal
procedure for realisation of your urgent need you have to wait and wait for B
23 to 30 years, what else is it if not to inevitably encourage and force him
- .~ to resort to extra legal measures for realising the required reliefs. A Republic,
governed by rule of law, cannot afford to compel its citizens to resort to such
extra legal means which are very often contra legal means with counter-
productive results on the maintenance of law and order in the country. C
We dismiss these appeals.

M.P. Appeals dismissed.