Bona fide landlord need and comparative hardship upheld despite tenant's challenge to concurrent rent control findings

Bona fide requirement under rent control was established on oral and documentary evidence, as the authorities found that the landlady needed additional accommodation for family members and that the tenant had not displaced that need by proving adequate alternative accommodation. Comparative hardship also favoured the landlady because the tenant and his family had accommodation elsewhere, and the length of tenancy under Rule 16 did not outweigh the proved need. The Court reiterated that the landlord is the best judge of requirement and that bona fide personal need is primarily a question of fact. In the absence of any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity, interference with the concurrent findings was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the landlady established a bona fide requirement for release of the tenanted premises under the rent control and whether the tenant could displace the concurrent findings on comparative hardship and need in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The prescribed authority and the appellate authority found, on oral and documentary evidence, that the landlady required additional accommodation for her family members and that the tenant had not shown that the alleged alternative accommodation and related assertions were sufficient to defeat that need. The authorities also held that the tenant and his family had accommodation elsewhere and that the balance of hardship favoured the landlady. Rule 16 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 was considered, but the length of tenancy did not outweigh the proved need. The Court also reiterated that the landlord is the best judge of requirement and that a bona fide personal need is primarily a question of fact. In view of the concurrent factual findings, no jurisdictional error or legal infirmity was shown to justify interference.

Conclusion: The release order based on bona fide need and comparative hardship was upheld, and interference with the concurrent findings was declined in favour of the landlady.

---