Tenancy not irrevocable, landlord allowed to use property as he deems fit: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that a landlord should be permitted to utilize his property as he sees fit and that renting out a portion of the property is not irrevocable [Zulfikar Ahmad And 7 Others Vs Jahangir Alam].Justice Ajit Kumar made the observation while dismissing a plea challenging the Prescribed Authority's decision to allow a landlord's release application in relation to the two shops rented out by him.The Court observed that that since it is settled law that the landlord is best arbitor on which accommodation would suit him to establish business, the Prescribed Authority should be slow in rejecting the release applications."The landlord should always be left to utilize the property the way he wants and just because he has let out a particular portion of his property on rent to a third party inducting it as a tenant, it should not become as irrevocable tenancy forever," it said. .The Bench further said that a court is merely required to see whether the landlord's requirement is bonafide one or not."A tenant should be at the pleasure of landlord in a sense that as and when the landlord needs the property for his personal use, he will have to release," it added.The Court also explained that the question of bonafide requirement would depend upon the facts of each case."It may at times also depend on many other factors like the landlord's family is very large one and he needs to settle so many persons of the family to run business and even otherwise where landlord may use a larger area than available one and the suitability of accommodation to run a kind of business which may not be possible in alternative accommodation," the judgment read..In the present case, the Prescribed Authority under UP Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972, had earlier ruled in favour of the landlord who wanted to use the shops to set up a scooter and motorcycle repair workshop.The decision was upheld by the court of appeal, leading to the present challenge before High Court. The tenants argued that Prescribed Authority failed to give due consideration to the alternative accommodation available in the form of a third shop to the landlord. They said he could have been used that shop to set up his business. In response, the landlord said the third shop was unsuitable as it contained a staircase and was being used as a warehouse..The Court upheld the Prescribed Authority's decision and said the point of bonafide need and comparative hardships have been decided in favour of the landlord after discussing all the relevant aspects.The court of appeal too had determined that the width of the road in front of the shops and the available space on the property were sufficient for the auto repair works, it noted. The Court further observed that if the shop has a stair case, then the landlord's family members would be going to first floor or roof top using that, due to which their privacy may be exposed to the strangers."In the circumstances, therefore, the tenant was not justified in saying that the alternative accommodation available was reasonably suitable so as to run the scooter repair works. The Prescribed Authority was fully justified in holding that it is the landlord who is in best position to tell which would be the best suitable accommodation and this has been also the settled legal position," it said while dismissing the plea. .Advocate Vinayak Mithal appeared for the petitioners while advocates Gaurav Dhama, Raj Kumar Singh, Rajat Aren and Sheetla Sahai Srivastava represented the respondent..[Read Judgment]