Skip to content


Ram Lobhaya Sikand Vs. the Additional District Judge and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 663 of 1976
Judge
Reported inAIR1977SC902; (1976)4SCC511
ActsUttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Sections 21; Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 - Rule 16; Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Act - Sections 27
AppellantRam Lobhaya Sikand
RespondentThe Additional District Judge and ors.
Cases ReferredChandra Kumar v. District Judge
Excerpt:
.....[dr.arijit pasayat & asok kumar ganguly,jj] right of private defence availability held, it is a question of fact to be determined on facts and circumstances of each case. no test in abstract for determining such a question can be laid down.section 96: plea as to private defence held, burden of proof is on the accused. burden stands discharged by showing preponderance of probabilities is favour of that plea. section 96: right of private defence - accused taking plea of private defence held, held, he need not required to call evidence. he can establish his plea by reference to circumstances transpiring from prosecution evidence itself. section 96 : right of private defence -injuries on body of accused person held, presumption cannot necessarily be raised that accused person had..........landlord and the tenant shall be taken into account in the light of the factors prescribed by the rules and rule 16 has been retrospectively validated by section 27 of the amending act. in view of these retrospective provisions enacted by the amending act, the judgment of the high court cannot stand and must be set aside. we accordingly allow the appeal. set aside the judgment of the high court and remand the case to the high court with a direction to dispose of the writ petition in the light of the amended section 21 read with rule 16. when the writ petition goes back to the high court, it will be open to the appellant to raise all such points as are available to him. the high court will try to dispose of the writ petition as expeditiously as possible there will be no order as to costs.
Judgment:

P.N. Bhagwati, J.

1. The decision of the High Court in this case turns on the question as to whether the comparative hardship of the landlord and tenant was liable be taken into account in considering whether or not an Order of eviction should be passed against the tenant The High Court took the view on the analogy of the Full Bench decision of the High Court in Chandra Kumar v. District Judge, Varanasi : AIR1976All328 which struck down Rule 16(2) of the Rules framed under U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 that Rule 16(1) which requires the comparative hardship of the landlord and tenant to be taken into account in deciding the question of eviction was ultra vires the Act and on this view, held that the hardship which would be caused to the tenant by passing an Order of eviction was not required to be considered by the District Judge. This view taken, by the High Court is assailed in the present appeal preferred by the appellant/tenant with special leave obtained from this Court. It is not necessary for us to go into the question whether the view taken by the High Court as regards the validity of Rule 16(1) is correct or not, since we find that, subsequent to the filing of the present appeal, Section 21 of the Act has been amended with retrospective effect by introduction of a proviso which requires that the comparative hardship of the landlord and the tenant shall be taken into account in the light of the factors prescribed by the Rules and Rule 16 has been retrospectively validated by Section 27 of the Amending Act. In view of these retrospective provisions enacted by the Amending Act, the judgment of the High Court cannot stand and must be set aside. We accordingly allow the appeal. set aside the judgment of the High Court and remand the case to the High Court with a direction to dispose of the writ petition in the light of the amended Section 21 read with Rule 16. When the writ petition goes back to the High Court, it will be open to the appellant to raise all such points as are available to him. The High Court will try to dispose of the writ petition as expeditiously as possible There will be no Order as to costs.


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