Skip to content


Bishan Chand Vs. Vth Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr (Uttar Pradesh) and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 2199 of 1980 and Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1871 of 1980
Judge
Reported inAIR1982SC1230; (1982)1SCC626
ActsUttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 - Rule 16(2)
AppellantBishan Chand
RespondentVth Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr (Uttar Pradesh) and anr.
Excerpt:
.....of letting, rent and eviction) rules, 1972 - suit for ejectment filed by landlord before district judge who disposed off appeal and recorded finding on question of comparative hardship - order confirmed by high court - order of high court set aside and case send back to district judge - direction given to judge to consider question of comparative hardship in light of rule 16 (2) - open for appellate court to consider facts relating to earlier agreement - opportunity given to parties to lead additional evidence in form of affidavits before appellate court. - customs act, 1962 -- sections 137(3), 132 & 135(1)(a) & customs (compounding of offences) rules, 2005, rule 6; [s.h. kapadia & b. sudershan reddy, jj] compounding of offence permissibility held, the basis rule of..........the case the matter requires to be remanded. in the ejectment suit by the landlord the vth addl. district judge, bullandshahr, who disposed of the appeal, has unfortunately recorded a finding on the question of comparative hardship in a peculiar way. he held that hardship to both the landlord and the tenant would be the same. if that be the finding, in the absence of any additional circumstance indicating that preference could be shown to the landlord the ejectment order in his favour could not be made. apart from this, it does appear that rule 16(2) of u.p. urban buildings (regulation of letting, rent and eviction) rules, 1972 has not been considered at all by the appellate court. such an order has been confirmed by the high court. we, therefore, set aside the high court's order and.....
Judgment:

V.D. Tulzapurkar, J.

1. Special leave to appeal granted.

2. On hearing counsel on either side we are satisfied that in. the circumstances of the case the matter requires to be remanded. In the ejectment suit by the landlord the Vth Addl. District Judge, Bullandshahr, who disposed of the appeal, has unfortunately recorded a finding on the question of comparative hardship in a peculiar way. He held that hardship to both the landlord and the tenant would be the same. If that be the finding, in the absence of any additional circumstance indicating that preference could be shown to the landlord the ejectment order in his favour could not be made. Apart from this, it does appear that Rule 16(2) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 has not been considered at all by the appellate court. Such an order has been confirmed by the High Court. We, therefore, set aside the High Court's order and send the case back to the District Judge for disposal of the appeal in accordance with law with a direction to consider the question of comparative hardship in the light of the aforesaid Rule 16(2) While considering this question it will be open to the appellate court to take into consideration the facts relating to the earlier agreement, the offer of the appellant before us to give back his own shop to the respondent and the equities arising in the case. Opportunity is given to the parties to lead additional evidence in the form of affidavits before the appellate Court. The matter is accordingly remanded. There will be no order as to costs of the appeal.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //