LI Network
Published on: January 15, 2024 at 11:00 IST
In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court has clarified that, under the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, landlords are no longer obligated to demonstrate a bonafide requirement or comparative hardship to seek the eviction of a tenant.
The Court, presided over by Justice Alok Mathur, observed that the 2021 Act has significantly altered the legal landscape, replacing the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.
Under the new law, the Court highlighted that landlords are now only required to establish their need for the premises for personal occupation, without the necessity of proving a bonafide requirement for eviction.
The Court emphasized that the exclusion of a bonafide requirement as grounds for eviction constitutes a material alteration in the law.
In its order dated January 8, the court stated that in the absence of a bonafide requirement, landlords only need to demonstrate that the premises are required for their occupation, either in its existing form or after demolition.
The Court made these observations while adjudicating a petition challenging a Rent Tribunal’s decision to uphold an eviction order against the petitioner (tenant).
The landlord had sought eviction, citing the petitioner’s refusal to sign a new agreement under the 2021 Act and the need for the premises for his son’s business. The Rent Authority and Tribunal had both ruled in favor of eviction.
Acknowledging the changes brought about by the repeal of the 1972 Act and the enactment of the new law, the court noted substantial differences in eviction procedures under both enactments.
The Court, while examining the case, emphasized that the petitioner’s main contention regarding the lack of prior notice was addressed by the new enactment, which mandates notice only on certain grounds.
In this specific case, where the landlord sought eviction based on non-payment of rent and personal need, the Court found that the eviction order was issued solely on the grounds of personal need without requiring payment of arrears. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petitioner’s grievance about the notice and found no merit in the petition, ultimately upholding the landlord’s right to eviction.
