Holding

The creation of a trust over the premises during the pendency of the suit extinguished the landlord's personal requirement, rendering the eviction order untenable.

Summary

The landlady sought eviction of the tenants under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, claiming she needed the premises to run tuition classes to augment her meagre pension. The prescribed authority rejected the application, but the appellate authority and the Uttaranchal High Court allowed the eviction. During the pendency of the appeal, a trust was created over the property by a deed dated 04‑08‑2003, transferring ownership to the trustees. The Supreme Court held that the creation of the trust eliminated the landlord's personal requirement because the trust deed did not permit the landlord to draw income and Section 51 of the Indian Trusts Act bars a trustee from using trust property for personal profit. Consequently, the ground for eviction disappeared, and the Court set aside the appellate and High Court orders, allowing the appeal.

Issues considered

The landlord's ground of personal requirement under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act remains valid after the property is transferred to a trust.
Whether the creation of a trust during pendency of the eviction proceedings defeats the landlord's claim to occupy the premises for tuition/coaching classes.
Whether the appellate and High Court decisions allowing eviction should be reversed in view of the changed factual circumstances.

Legislation cited

Indian Trusts Act, 1882s. 51
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972s. 21(1)(a)

Subjects

evictionpersonal requirementtrust propertyUrban Buildings ActSection 21changed circumstanceslandlord-tenanttrust deedSection 51

Judgment

(

I
f
'

'"""
PRABHA ARORA AND ANR. A
V.

BRIJ MOHINI ANAND AND ORS.

OCTOBER 31, 2007

~ [A.K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.]
-"·
Rent Control and Eviction-Eviction suit-On the ground of
using the premisesfor earning purpose-Evict ion denied by Prescribed
Authority-Allowed by the Appellate Authority and High Court- c
Subsequent event duringpendency ofappeal-On appeal, held: In the
facts ofthe case and in view ofsubsequent event, groundfor eviction
-l
disappeared-Landlady not entitled for eviction-UP. Urban
Buildings (Regulation ofLetting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972-s. 21
(1) (a). D
Respondent-landlady filed an application u/s 21(1)(a) ofU.P.
Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972
against the appellant-tenants. Eviction was sought on the ground that
she wanted the premises for running tuition/coaching classes in order
to augment her income. Prescribed authority rejected her E
application. Appellate Authority as well as High Court upheld her
claim. Hence the present appeal.

Appellant contended that during pendency of the appeal before
--? the appellate authority, a Trust was created in respect of the property F
in question and in view of that the very purpose for which the eviction
was sought, disappeared.

Respondent contended that the purpose did not disappear
because the application for eviction was filed on the ground that the
respondent wanted to do charitable work. G
\-
.>\

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: In view of the creation of the Trust during pendency of
721 H
-\

722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 11 S.C.R.
y

A the litigation, the purpose for which eviction was sought of the
tenants through the release application has disappeared. The trust
deed nowhere mentions that any income of the Trust will be given
to the petitioner who filed the release application. In fact, Section
51 of the Trust Act debars a trustee from using the trust property
B for his own profit. The purpose mentioned in the petition under
Section 21 ofU.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and A
Eviction) Act, 1972 was not for doing charitable work. However, after ......
the execution of the trust deed, the premises in dispute now belongs r
to the Trust. The need mentioned in the petition under Section 21
has totally disappeared. [Paras 4 and 8] [723-D, E; 724-C, D]
c
I-
KedarNathAgrawal (dead) andAnr. v.DhanrajiDevi (dead) by
Lrs. and Anr., [2004] 8 SCC 76; Hasmat Rai v. Raghunath Prasad,
(1981] 3 SCC 103 and MM Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma and Ors., r ~
(1981] 3 sec 36, relied on. ~
.I
D
Tulsidas Kilachand and Ors. v. Commissioner ofIncome Tax, AIR ·r
(1961) SC 1023, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2371 of
2007.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.10.2006 of the High Court
ofU1.taranchal at Nainital in W.P. No. 337/2004 (MIS).
Dinesh Dwivedi, P.N. Gupta for the Appellants.

F M.N. Krishnamani, S.C. Maheshwari, J. Quddisi, Vipul .,
~

Mal1eshwari, M.P.S. Tomer and Sandhya Goswami for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MARKANDEY KATJU, J. I. This appeal has been filed against
the judgment dated 09. l 0.2006 passed by the Uttaranchal High Court in
G
Writ Petition No. 337 of 2004 (M/S). Heard learned counsel for the ....J.....

parties and perused the records.
2. The appellants before us are the tenants of the premises in dispute
while the respondents are the landlords. The landlady filed the petition
H
I
J
PRABHAARORA V. :!lRUMOHINIANAND 723
[MARKANDEYKATJU,J.]
i.fudet 5ection 2l(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, A
Re~t and EvldiBh) Act, 1972. The grounds mentioned in the release
application of the landlady was that she is a retired teacher getting only a
pension of Rs. 538/~ per ttionth which is insufficient for her needs. Hence
to augment her income she wants to rtift tuition/coaching classes in the
)._ premise§ Jtt QHSstitm. The said petition was rejected by the Prescribed B
,..J.
Authority, but in appeal the appellate authority (ADJ Dehradun) by his
judgment dated 16.03 .2004 reversed the order of the Prescribed
Authority and allowed the release application. The said judgment dated
16:6.12004 has been upheld by the High Court by the impugned judgment
dated 09. i 0.2006. Hence this appeal. c
3. It may be mentioned that during the pendency of the appeaJ
before the appellate authority a Trust was created in respect of the
property in question vide trust deed dated 04.08.2003 (copy of which is
annexed as Annexure P-8 to this appeal).
y D
4. Lean1ed counsel for the appellants, Sim Dinesh Dwivedi, submitted
that in view of the aforesaid trust deed dated 04.08.2003 the very purpose
, for which eviction was sought of the tenants through the release application
has disappeared. We are in agreement with this submission. TI1e trust deed
nowhere mentions that any income of the Trust will be given to the
E
petitioner who filed the release application. In fact, Section 51 of the Trust
Act debars a trustee from using the trust property for his own profit.
5. In Kedar Nath Agrawal (dead) & Anr. v. Dhanraji Devi (dead)
-; by Lrs. & Anr., [2004] 8 SCC 76 this Court held that the court has to
consider the changed circumstances during the pendency of the litigation. F
This decision relied on the earlier decision of this Court in Hasmat Rai v.
Raghunath Prasad, [1981] 3 SCC 103: AIR ( 1981) SC 1711 in which
it was observed that where possession is sought for personal requirement,
the said requirement must not only exist on the date of the filing of the
.._ petition but must also subsist till the final decree for an order for eviction G
,,.
is made. If, in the meantime, events crop up which would show that the
landlord's requirement no longer subsists then the action must fail.
6. In Tulsidas Kilachand & Ors. v. Commissioner ofIncome Tax,
AIR ( 1961) SC I 023 it was held that on creation of a Trust the property
H
--\
724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.
y

A passes to the trustees. Hence, in our opinion, rent is now to be paid to
the trustees who will collect it on behalf of the Trust.
7. In MM Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma & Ors., [1981] 3
SCC 36 this Court held that on transfer of property to a person who is
not a party to the proceedings the suit for eviction will fail.
B
8. Learned counsel for the respondents, Shri M.N. Krishnamani, A
submitted that the petition under Section 21 for eviction was filed on the
ground that the petitioner wanted to do charitable work, and after creation
'-
of the Trust also the purpose remains the sani.e. We do not agree. In the
c petition under Section 21 it is stated iri pai-agraph nos. 3 - 7 of the petition
that the petitioner has a monthly pension of Rs. 538/- only and she wants
to augment her income as it is difficult for her to survive on the meager
pension. Hence she wants to open a tutorial centre in the premises in
dispute to earn some money. The purpose mentioned in the petition under
D Section 21 was not for doing charitable work. However, after the
execution of the trust deed the premises in dispute now belongs to the
Trust. The need mentioned in the petition under Section 21 has totally
-r
disappeared.
,,
9. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment of the High
E Court dated 09.10.2006 and of th~ appellate authority dated 16.03.2006
can not be sustained and are set aside.
10. Appeal is allowed, no order as to costs
K.K.T. // Appeal allowed.
h-
F 't "
;.,

-'...