Landlord not required to show bonafide requirement for eviction of tenant: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently said that a landlord seeking the eviction of a tenant is only required to demonstrate that he requires the premises for his occupation, and does not need to show a bonafide requirement for eviction [Mahesh Chandra Agarwal v. Rent Tribunal And 2 Others]..Justice Alok Mathur observed that Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 has materially altered the law by replacing the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972..Under the new law, the landlord is longer required to show comparative hardship or a bonafide requirement to seek the eviction of the tenant, the Court noted.“Exclusions of bonafide requirement of landlord as a ground for eviction has, in fact, materially altered the law in this regard,” the Court observed in its January 8 order. .The Court added that in absence of the “bonafide requirement”, the landlord only has to demonstrate that “that the premises are required by him in its existing form or after demolition for the purpose of its occupation by him.”.The Court made the observation while hearing a petition challenging a Rent Tribunal’s decision to uphold an order of eviction against the petitioner (tenant).The landlord had earlier moved an application before the Rent Authority alleging that he had asked the petitioner to vacate the shop rented out to him after he refused to sign a new agreement under the 2021 Act. The application stated that he required the premises for establishment of a business by his son. It was also alleged that the petitioner had failed to pay the enhanced rent.The Rent Authority allowed the application for eviction in December 2022. The order was upheld by the Rent Tribunal in August last year. .These concurrent decisions were challenged before the High Court by the tenant. The High Court, at the outset, noted the changes brought in by repeal of the 1972 Act and enactment of the new law. There is substantial difference in the procedure laid down for eviction of the tenant in both the enactments, the Court found.After examining the facts of the case, the Court noted the petitioner’s main grievance was that he had not received any notice prior to filing of the case of eviction..However, the Court noticed that the new enactment makes prior notice mandatory only on certain grounds.The Court further noted that as per the law, there is no requirement of service of prior notice where eviction is sought on the ground of personal need.In the present case, the landlord had sought eviction on two grounds - non-payment of arrears of rent for more than two consecutive months and for use of the property for personal use..After examining the case records, the Court found that the application for eviction was allowed only after considering the aspect of personal need of the landlord and no order was passed for the payment of arrears of rent.Considering the same, the Court said it was not necessary to go into the petitioner’s grievance of whether there was sufficient notice.On the aspect of personal need by the landlord, the Court said the petitioner had not disputed that the premises were required by the owner for his own occupation. “In absence of any such averment or material there would not be any occasion to interfere in the order passed by the rent authority or the rent tribunal,” it added.Finding no merit in the petition, the High Court dismissed it..Advocates Nandini Verma and Aprajita Bansal represented the petitioner (tenant).Advocates Ankit Shrivastav and Shresth Agarwal represented the respondent (landlord)..[Read Judgment]