1997 INSC 0405
                                        SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                                     Shiv Kumar

                                                           Vs.

                                                         Sajida

                                          Civil Appeal No. 2460 of 1997

                                                      27.03.1997

                                                       ORDER

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. Haji Baqridan, the predecessor-in-interest of Respondent 1 Sajida (since deceased) and
Respondent 2 Mohd. Idris moved a petition under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. 13 of 1972) (hereinafter referred to
as the Act) for release of the shop in question and for eviction of the appellant and Respondent 4
Ram Roop, on the ground that Ram Roop Respondent 4, who was a tenant of the said premises, had
vacated the premises and inducted the appellant herein in the said premises. In the petition for
eviction bona fide requirement of accommodation to run business for his sons in the absence of
alternative accommodation was pleaded as one of the grounds. The petition was resisted both by the
original tenant i.e. Respondent 4 and the appellant herein. The prescribed authority vide judgment
and decree dated 22-12-1979 found that the bona fide requirement of the landlord had been
established on the basis of the evidence led by the parties. A decree directing the appellant and
Respondent 4 to deliver possession of the premises to the landlord was accordingly passed.
Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the prescribed authority dated 22-12-1979, the appellant
filed an appeal before the 2nd Additional District Judge. Ram Roop Respondent 4, the original
tenant however, did not question the eviction order. The appellate authority vide judgment and
decree dated 18-11-1980 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the prescribed
authority. The landlord Haji Baqridan then filed a civil miscellaneous writ petition in the High Court
challenging the judgment of the appellate authority. During the pendency of the proceedings in the
High Court, Haji Baqridan died and his widow Ms. Sajida Respondent 1 and son Mohd. Idris
Respondent 2 were substituted as his legal heirs and brought on record. Later Respondent 1 Sajida,
widow of Baqridan, also died and since Mohd. Idris her son was already on record the index was
corrected. The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the judgment and decree dated 18-
11-1980 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Jaunpur and restored that of the prescribed
authority.

Hence this appeal by the appellant.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and examined the record. The interpretation by
the High Court of Sections 21 and 23 of the Act is unexceptionable. Section 23 of the Act
unmistakably provides that the prescribed authority may cause to be used such force as may be
necessary for evicting any tenant against whom an order is made under Section 21 as well as against
any other person found in actual occupation for the purpose of putting the landlord in actual
possession of the tenanted property. The expression "or against any other person found in actual
possession" undoubtedly includes the person like the appellant, who was put in possession by the
tenant after vacating the premises. By merely vacating the premises, the tenancy had not come to an
end and it was open to the landlord to file a petition under Section 21 of the Act against the tenant
and the subtenant along with tenant. There is thus, no force in the submission that no petition under
Section 21 of the Act was competent against the sub-tenant. The finding recorded by the High
Court, is sound and the High Court rightly set aside the order of the appellate authority and restored
that of the prescribed authority. We are not persuaded to take a contrary view. The prescribed
authority, the appellate authority and the High Court concurrently found in favour of the landlord on
the question of bona fide nature of his need and the comparative hardship, the order of eviction was,
therefore well merited. There is no merit in this appeal which fails and is hereby dismissed. We,
however, make no order as to costs.