Supreme Court of India
MEHMOOD RAHMAT ULLAH KHAN & ANR. versus NIYAZ AHMAD KHAN
- Decided
- 23 February 2011
- Judges listed
- MARKANDEY KATJU, GYAN SUDHA MISRA
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [2011] 3 S.C.R. 202 · 2011 INSC 156
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Paragraph numbering in our copy is uncertain (unnumbered_in_numbered_era). Link to paragraph N with #para-N; that is paragraph N of the first opinion that numbers its paragraphs, and another opinion's paragraph N is #op2-para-N, #op3-para-N and so on, by its opinion number.
MEHMOOD RAHMAT ULLAH KHAN & ANR. v. NIYAZ 203:
p. 203
AHMAD KHAN
p. 203
Opinion 2
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1264 OF 2009 Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
p. 203, margin A
This Appeal has been filed against the impugned Judgment dated' 8.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Allahabad.
p. 203, margin B
The appellant herein is a landlord of premises in question and the respondent is the tenant. The appellant filed a Petition under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Building Act, 1972 alleging that he has bonafide need of the premises and hence the tenant should be evicted. The prescribed authority found that the landlord could not establish his bonafide need and hence it rejected the petition. The tenant filed an appeal and the Appellate Court has upheld the finding that there is no bonafide need of the premises of the landlord.
p. 203, margin B
Surprisingly, the High Court while upholding the finding that there is no bonafide need of the landlord has allowed the Writ Petition by the impugned Judgment dated 8.10.2007 by increasing the rent.
p. 203, margin C
It is well settled that a High Court in Writ Petition cannot interfere with the finding of fact, regarding bonafide need.
p. 203, margin E
We are also of the opinion that under Section 21, there is no question of enhancement of rent. That may be done under some other provision of the Act.
p. 203, margin F
Accordingly, we dispose of this appeal with the direction. that the impugned Judgment is set aside and Judgmentof First Appellate Gou rt rejecting· the Petition under $ecUon:2tJs upheld. The direction increasing rent is set aside, ' . , .
p. 203, margin F
The appeal is disposed.of accordingly.
p. 203, margin F
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1073 OF 2009
p. 204, margin A
This Appeal has been filed against the impugned Judgment dated 8.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Allahabad.
p. 204, margin A
The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence we are not repeating the same here.
p. 204, margin A
Under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings Act, 1972, the prescribed authority can either allow the Petition for eviction of the tenant or it can refuse to do so. It cannot ehance the rent · under those proceedings. Hence, we set aside the impugned Judgment of the High Court.
p. 204, margin A
The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. N.J. Appeal allowed.
p. 204, margin C