MEHMOOD RAHMAT ULLAH KHAN & ANR.versusNIYAZ AHMAD KHAN

                         [2011) 3 S.C.R. 202


A          MEHMOOD RAHMAT ULLAH KHAN & ANR.
                                   V.
                        NIYAZ AHMAD KHAN
                  (Civil Appeal No. 1264 of 2009)
                        FEBRUARY 23, 2011
B
    [MARKANDEY KATJU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]

        Rent Control and Eviction:

c       U.P. Urban Building Act, 1972- s. 21 - Eviction petition
  - On the ground of bonafide need - Prescribed Authority as
  also the appellate court holding that the landlord could not
  establish bonafide need - Writ Petition - High Court
  upholding the finding as regards the bonafide need of the
0 landlord, however, increased the rent - On appeal held: High
  Court in a writ petition cannot interfere with the finding of fact,
  regarding bonafide need - Under s. 21, rent cannot be
  enhanced - Direction with regard to increasing the rent, set
  aside.

E       CIVIL APPELLATE JURSDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    1264 of 2009.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 8.10.2007 of the High
    Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
F   46934 of 2002.

                                 WITH

    C.A. No. 1073 of 2009

G        lrshad Ahmad, Bimal Roy Jad for    me Appellants.
        Bimal Roy Jad, Vikram Rathore, lrshad Ahmad for the
    Respondent.

        The following Order of the Court was delivered
H                                202
MEHMOOD RAHMAT ULLAH KHAN & ANR. v. NIYAZ 203:
             AHMAD KHAN
                            ORDER                                    A
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1264 OF 2009

    Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

     This Appeal has been filed against the impugned                 B
Judgment dated' 8.10.2007 passed by the High Court of
Allahabad.

      The appellant herein is a landlord of premises in question
and the respondent is the tenant. The appellant filed a Petition     C
under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Building Act, 1972
alleging that he has bonafide need of the premises and hence
the tenant should be evicted. The prescribed authority found that
the landlord could not establish his bonafide need and hence
it rejected the petition. The tenant filed an appeal and the
Appellate Court has upheld the finding that there is no bonafide
                                                                     0
need of the premises of the landlord.

     Surprisingly, the High Court while upholding the finding that
there is no bonafide need of the landlord has allowed the Writ
Petition by the impugned Judgment dated 8.10.2007 by                 E
increasing the rent.

     It is well settled that a High Court in Writ Petition cannot
interfere with the finding of fact, regarding bonafide need.

    We are also of the opinion that under Section 21, there is       F
no question of enhancement of rent. That may be done under
some other provision of the Act.

     Accordingly, we dispose of this appeal with the direction.
that the impugned Judgment is set aside and Judgmentof First
Appellate Gou rt rejecting· the Petition under $ecUon:2tJs ·
upheld. The direction increasing rent is set aside,   ' . , .

    The appeal is disposed.of accordingly.
     204        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 3 S.C.R.


A CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1073 OF 2009

         This Appeal has been filed against the impugned
    Judgment dated 8.10.2007 passed by the High Court of
    Allahabad.
8        The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and
     hence we are not repeating the same here.

           Under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings Act, 1972,
      the prescribed authority can either allow the Petition for eviction
c     of the tenant or it can refuse to do so. It cannot ehance the rent
    · under those proceedings. Hence, we set aside the impugned
      Judgment of the High Court.

            The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.

     N.J.                                             Appeal allowed.