The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has held that under the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, a landlord is only required to demonstrate that the premises are needed for their occupation, without satisfying the more rigorous test of “bona fide need” or “comparative hardship” required under the previous 1972 law.
Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, while dismissing a petition filed by a tenant challenging an eviction order, observed that the omission of terms like “bona fide requirement” in the new Act was a “conscious legislative departure” aimed at simplifying eviction proceedings for personal use.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a dispute between a tenant, Shyam Pal, and the landlord, B.S. Enterprises, regarding a shop in Kanpur Nagar. The landlord sought the release of the premises under Section 21(2)(m) of the Act, 2021, stating the space was needed for business expansion and to facilitate residential use of the first floor by moving a workshop to the ground floor.
The tenant contested the proceedings, asserting that the agreed rent was Rs. 500 per month and that the landlord’s requirement was not genuine. He argued that the landlord had alternative accommodations and that the shop was his sole source of livelihood.
The Rent Authority allowed the eviction on June 19, 2025, on the ground of personal requirement. This was subsequently upheld by the Rent Tribunal on January 30, 2026. The tenant then approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Arguments of the Parties
For the Petitioner (Tenant): Senior Counsel Sri Atul Dayal argued that the landlord’s requirement was a “mere pretext” to evict. Relying on Phiroze Bamanji Desai v. Chandrakant N. Patel and Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Mahesh Chand Gupta, he contended that “requires” must mean an actual, genuine need and not just a desire. He further urged that the authorities failed to consider alternative accommodations available to the landlord.
For the Respondent (Landlord): Sri Kunal Shah argued that the 2021 Act is clear and unambiguous. He contended that once the requirement is demonstrated, the court cannot reintroduce the “bona fide” test or “comparative hardship” analysis. He relied on Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd. v. Bombay Iron & Steel Labour Board to emphasize that the plain language of the statute must be followed.
The Court’s Analysis
The Court centered its analysis on the shift from the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 to the Act of 2021. It noted that Section 21(2)(m) of the new Act requires only that “the premises are required by landlord… for the purpose of its occupation.”
Justice Srivastava observed:
“The omission of these requirements [bona fide requirement and comparative hardship] under the present enactment is neither incidental nor insignificant, but a conscious legislative departure.”
The Court applied the principle of casus omissus, stating that it cannot read words back into a statute that the legislature deliberately removed. The judgment noted:
“Any attempt to reintroduce notions of ‘genuine,’ ‘pressing,’ or ‘bona fide’ while construing the expression ‘required’ under Section 21(2)(m) would amount to supplying a casus omissus, which is impermissible.”
Referencing the English Court of Appeal decision in Ireland v. Taylor, the Court clarified that “requires” is satisfied if a landlord establishes a genuine intention to occupy. The court held that the landlord is the “sole arbiter of his own requirements” as long as the intention is not a mere pretense.
The Court concluded that the nature of adjudication has “fundamentally altered” under the 2021 Act. The focus is no longer on the urgency or degree of need compared to the tenant’s hardship, but strictly on whether the requirement exists as pleaded.
Decision of the Court
Finding no illegality or jurisdictional error in the lower authorities’ orders, the High Court dismissed the petition. However, upon the petitioner’s request, the Court granted the tenant eight months to vacate the premises, subject to filing an undertaking and depositing Rs. 2,000 per month as “use and occupation charges.”
The tenant has been directed to hand over peaceful possession to the landlord on or before December 2, 2026.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Shyam Pal v. B.S. Enterprises
- Case Number: Matters Under Article 227 No. 3045 of 2026
- Bench: Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- Counsel for Petitioner: Sri Atul Dayal (Senior Counsel), Sri Prakash Chandra Dwivedi, and Sri Raunak Gupta
- Counsel for Respondent: Sri Kunal Shah and Ms. Nidhi
- Date: April 2, 2026
