- (1.) R. K. Sharma, J. A learned Single Judge referred the following question for decision by a larger bench "whether the need of the landlord under Section 21 (1) (a) can be considered even if the landlord had pleaded that the building is in a dilapidated condition and requires demolition?
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) provides for the release of building under occupation of a tenant on an application of the landlord. Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of so far as it is relevant for the present controversy is reproduced below: "21. Proceedings for release of building under occupation of tenant - (1) The prescribed authority may, on an application of the landlord in that behalf, order the eviction of a tenant from the building under tenancy or any specified part thereof if it is satisfied that any of the following grounds exists namely - (a) that the building is bona fide required either in its existing form or after demolition and new construction by the landlord for occupation by himself or any member of his family, or any person for whose benefit it is held by him, either for residential purposes or for purposes of any profession, trade or calling, or where the landlord is the trustee of a public charitable trust, for the objects of the trust. (b) that the building is in a dilapidated condition and is required for purposes of demolition and new construction. " Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21 have laid down two circumstances under which a landlord can recover possession of the building from his tenant. Clause (a) covers a case when the building is bonafide required either in its existing form or after demolition and new construction by the landlord for his own occupation or for occupation of any member of his family. In such a case bona fide requirement of the landlord is a condition precedent for release of the building. But the state and condition of the building is not a relevant consideration for releases of the building in favour of the landlord under Clause (a ). A building under tenancy may or may not be in good condition. It may be in dilapidated condition which requires demolition and new construction. But if the landlord bona fide requires such a building after demolition and new construction for his own occupation or for occupation of the members of his family, it can be released under Clause (a ). Clause (b) covers a case where the building is in dilapidated condition and is required by the landlord for demolition and new construction, but not for his own occupation. A case of a building of dilapidated condition which needs demolition and new construction, can fall under any of the two Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 21 (1), depending on the fact whether it is required by the landlord for his own occupation after demolition and new construction or for its demolition and new construction only. When such a building is needed by the landlord for his own occupation the case will be covered by Clause (a ). But if it is required merely for demolition and re-construction Clause (b) will be applicable to such a case. The submission that as the building in dilapidated condition is covered by Clause (b) it stands excluded from Clause (a), cannot be accepted. The two clauses have merely laid down two circumstances under which a building can be released in favour of the landlord. Different considerations govern the two situations under the two clauses. Bona fide requirement of the building by the landlord is a relevant consideration under Clause (a) but it is not so under Clause (b ). Likewise the condition of the building is not at all material under Clause (a) but it is a condition precedent under Clause (b ). All the buildings irrespective of their conditions, if bona fide required by the landlord for his own occupation can be covered under Clause (a) but Clause (b) covers only a dilapidated building. Which of the two clauses will apply to a case will depend on the fact/question whether the building is bona fide required by the landlord for his own occupation. If the answer is in the affirmative Clause (a) will apply irrespective of the condition of the building. Clause (b) will be attracted only if a dilapidated building is required by landlord for demolition and new construction and not for his own occupation. If the dilapidated building is bona fide required by the landlord for his own occupation, his claim under Clause (a) cannot be rejected merely on the ground that the building in dilapidated condition is covered by Clause (b), because Clause (b) does not cover such a case. Subject to the regulatory provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder a landlord has all the rights to use his property in any lawful manner and he cannot be denied such a right merely because his building is in a dilapidated condition which needs demolition and re-construction. Supreme Court in S. K. Gopalkrishna Chetty v. Ganeshan and Others, AIR 1975 SC 1750 has laid down that, "a landlord has every right to demolish his property in order to build a new structure on the site to improve his business or to get better returns on, his investment. Such a stepper-se cannot be characterised as mala fide on the part of the landlord. "
(3.) WHEN the composite application under Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 21 (1) is made by the landlord it is open to him to press his case under any of the two clauses. He may claim eviction of the tenant under Clause (a) if proves bona fide requirement of the building for his personal occupation and also satisfies the other requirements laid down by the relevant Rules. In such a case even if the building is in dilapidated condition which requires demolition and new construction the case will be covered by Clause (a) and not by Clause (b ). If the landlord fails to satisfy the requirement of Clause (a) he can still press the application for release of the building under Clause (b ). " In Bhulan Singh and others v. Ganendra Kumar Roy Chowdhury, AIR 1950 Calcutta 74, a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court while considering the proviso (f) to Section 11 of West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary provisions) Act, 1948 which provided that where the premises are bona fide required by the landlord either for purposes of building or re-building, or for his own occupation or for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the premises are held it may be released in favour of the landlord, has laid down as under: "it is suggested that this provision giving the landlord a right to possession, if he established that he required the premises bona fide for rebuilding, could have no application whatsoever unless the state of the premises was such that they required to be re-built. It is to be observed that proviso (f) to Section 11 (1) of the Act does not mention premises requiring re-building. What it states is that Sub-Section (1) shall have no application if the landlord requires the premises bona fide for re-building. The state of the premises therefore is not an essential factor in the case. ";