Summary
The Supreme Court restored the release of a tenanted shop for the landlord’s bona fide need. The statutory notice did not require registered post, and service was supported by affidavit, surrounding circumstances and the tenant’s own conduct, rather than a postal certificate alone. The High Court had improperly displaced concurrent findings on need and comparative hardship through speculation. The tenant received six months to vacate.
Issues
- Whether notice under the first proviso to Section 21(1)(a) required a particular mode of service.
- Whether the evidence supported notice, bona fide need and comparative hardship.
- Whether the High Court properly interfered with the concurrent release orders.
Provisions considered
- Section 21(1)(a), first proviso, Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972Applied the waiting period and six-month notice requirement; no prescribed mode of service required registered post. (¶¶ 11, 12, 15, 18)
- Section 34(1), Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972Recognised the statutory authority’s power to receive evidence on affidavits in assessing proof of notice. (¶¶ 14, 15)
Held
- The first proviso does not prescribe a particular mode of giving notice. Notice may be oral or written; registered post is not mandatory. The evidentiary value of a certificate of posting depends on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. (¶¶ 11, 12, 16, 17)
- Service was not inferred solely from the certificate of posting. The landlord’s affidavit, surrounding facts and the tenant’s own admissions and proceedings supported the prescribed authority’s finding that the required notice had been given. The purchase and application dates also satisfied the statutory waiting period. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 18)
- The prescribed authority and appellate court had found bona fide need and comparative hardship in favour of the landlord, including the tenant’s failure to seek alternative accommodation. The High Court’s speculative resale reasoning did not justify displacing those findings. (¶¶ 19, 20)
Result
Appeal allowed. High Court judgment set aside and the release order restored. Tenant granted six months from the judgment to vacate. No costs.