In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has ordered the eviction of a shop in Kanpur, observing that the landlord is not bound to establish a reason or need to occupy his rented property and is the sole arbiter of his requirement.ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW VIDEOA bench of Justice Dr Yogendra Kumar Srivastava observed in its order on Thursday, “In the absence of the expression ‘bona fide requirement’, the landlord is only required to demonstrate that the premises are needed for his occupation, either in its existing form or after demolition. Once such requirement is duly asserted, the onus shifts upon the tenant to specifically deny the same and substantiate such denial with cogent material. A mere bald or vague plea would not suffice to rebut the statutory ground.”It further observed that the expression “requires” does not import an obligation upon the landlord to establish reasonableness or necessity in an objective sense, but is satisfied once a genuine and bona fide intention to occupy the premises is established.“The Court expressly disapproved of substituting judicial assessment in place of the landlord’s own requirement and held that, so long as the intention is real and not a mere pretence, the landlord is the sole arbiter of his requirement. The enquiry, therefore, stands confined to the genuineness of the intention, and not its reasonableness,” the bench said.The petitioner, a tenant of a shop at Gandhi Nagar, P Road, Kanpur city, with a monthly rent of Rs 500, approached the high court after the Rent Authority rejected his application challenging the landlord’s notices to vacate it in June last year and the Rent Tribunal dismissed his appeal against the order in January.The landlord, under provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act 2021, had initiated proceedings seeking the release of the premises on the grounds that he had acquired ownership thereof by inheritance and that it was required for the expansion of his business.Rent hiked from Rs 500 to Rs 1,00,000In 2023, the landlord issued an intimation under the Act that the rent, as assessed on the basis of the applicable circle rate, would be Rs 1,00,000 per month.Story continues below this adThe tenant contested the proceedings, asserting that the agreed rent was Rs 500 per month and that increasing it to Rs 1 ,00,000 was impermissible under the Act. He also contended that the landlord’s requirement was not genuine and that he had alternative accommodation. It was also submitted that the rented shop constituted the tenant’s sole source of livelihood.The court stated that both sides had exchanged pleadings through affidavits in support of their claims. The landlord reiterated his requirement for the premises for personal use, while the tenant denied it and raised objections regarding maintainability, service of notice, and compliance with statutory requirements.After hearing the submissions, the court stated the core issue is whether, under relevant sections of 2021 Act, the landlord is merely to demonstrate that the premises are required for his occupation, or whether such requirement must also satisfy the test of “bona fide need” as was contemplated under the erstwhile UP Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972, which regulates rent, prevents unjustified eviction and governs the renting of properties.In view of the altered statutory position, the bench observed, the court is not required to undertake a comparative assessment of hardship between the parties, nor is it expected to scrutinise the degree or genuineness of the need in the manner contemplated under the repealed enactment. The jurisdiction is limited to ascertaining the existence of the requirement as pleaded by the landlord.Story continues below this adThe court stated that the defence raised by the tenant does not create any substantial doubt about the genuineness of the landlord’s requirement.“This Court finds that the orders passed by the Rent Authority and the Rent Tribunal are in consonance with the statutory scheme of Section 21(2)(m) of the Act, 2021 and do not suffer from any perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error. The requirement of the landlord having been duly established within the limited scope of the provision, and there being no material on record to dislodge the same, no ground for interference is made out in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,” the order stated further.While the court dismissed the petition, the tenant’s counsel requested eight more months to vacate the premises. The landlord’s counsel submitted that he has no objection to this request.The court stated, “In view of the request so made by counsel for the petitioner, while dismissing the petition, this Court grants eight months’ time to the petitioner to vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the premises in question to respondent-landlord on or before 2nd December, 2026, subject to the conditions:Story continues below this ad—The tenant shall file an undertaking before the Rent Authority, Kanpur Nagar, to the effect that he shall hand over peaceful possession of the premises to the respondent-landlord on or before December 2, 2026—The said undertaking shall be filed within a period of two weeks from today—The tenant shall regularly deposit a monthly amount of Rs 2,000 towards ‘use and occupation charges’ by the 7th day of each month during the period of extended occupation.The order further stated that if the tenant failed to follow any of the conditions, the court’s protection would automatically end and the landlord may ask the court to enforce the Rent Case judgment according to the law.