Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Section 21(1)(a) - U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972, Rule 16(2) - Eviction - Comparative hardship - Dismissal of eviction application - Appeal dismissed by District Court on observing that appellant's financial position was far better and they could have purchased a vacant bungalow and started business for their sons - Further observed that appellants had purchased the building to make profit and their desire to start a general merchant business was pretence - Whether District Court's observation correct - Held, it is well settled that landlord's requirement need not be a dire necessity - Court cannot direct the landlord to do a particular business rather than the business he proposes to start - District Court was not justified in making such observations.

Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Section 21(1)(a) - U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972, Rule 16(2) - Eviction - Comparative hardship - Ground of bona fide need - Dismissal of eviction application by Prescribed Authority - Appeal dismissed by District Court - Thirteen members in appellant-landlord's family living in three rooms and one verandah whereas four members in Respondent's family in possession of four rooms - First appellant carries his business from three small stalls of a shop whose rent keeps on increasing - His three sons though educated, are unemployed but desirous of starting a business in leased premises - High Court without considering comparative hardship directed possession of one room out of the four rooms to be handed over to the appellants since it was being used as a passage - No reason for granting partial relief - No challenge made to High Court's finding about appellant's bona fide requirement - Nothing to show that the appellants' present business is more flourishing than the proposed business - No efforts made by respondent to find alternative accommodation - Held, Appellant's hardship would be far more by not occupying the premises than the hardship suffered by respondent on leaving the premises - Respondent's hardship can be mitigated by granting him longer period to vacate - Possession of all rooms directed to be given to appellants within 6 months - Ganga Devi's case held to be applicable.

Topic(s)-Eviction

Important Decision(s)-No efforts made by respondent to find alternative accommodation - Ganga Devi's case.