Urban Building Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P.) – Section 21 – “bona fide need” – Interpretation of – Proceedings for release of building under occupation of tenant – Whether the need of the landlord for settling her son is bona fide ?
In the present case, the respondent-landlord has clearly established that shop in question is needed by her son to start on-line trading and share business and the need of the landlord is ‘bona fide’ and genuine. It is further evident from the bare reading of written statement of the tenant- petitioner that specifically he has not disputed the need of the landlord to establish her son in the shop in dispute and in view of the above set of facts, as per the interpretation of word “bona fide need” as given by the Apex Court and also by this Court, the need of the landlord is genuine and ‘bona fide’ as held by the courts below.
Urban Building Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P.) – Section 21 –Whether the question of comparative hardship in regard to the disputed shop favours the landlord or the tenant? – Since the specific findings has been recorded by the appellate court that the tenant-petitioner has unnecessarily held up the shop in question and therefore, the ground of comparative hardship is also in favour of the landlord and she will suffer irreparably if the shop is not released in her favour.
(LMSCL13082021)
No comments:
Post a Comment