In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court imposed a ₹15 lakh penalty on a tenant who had illegally occupied a property for 45 years without paying rent. The landlady, who sought the property to start a business for her son, faced decades of legal battle before getting justice.
Dismissing the tenant’s petition, Justice Pankaj Bhatia strongly criticized the tenant’s actions and ruled that the premises must be vacated within three weeks.
"In this case, the landlady's son, who graduated in 1981, has been deprived of his right to establish a business for over 40 years. The tenant has not paid rent since 1979. Considering the extent of the occupied property, a cost of ₹15 lakh is imposed on the petitioners, payable jointly and severally," the court stated.
Case Background
The dispute began when the landlady, Kastoori Devi, rented out her property to M/s Whorra Brothers. However, when she later sought to reclaim the premises under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, the tenant refused to vacate.
In 1992, the Prescribed Authority dismissed her request, stating that she failed to prove a genuine need for the property. However, she challenged this decision in the appellate authority, which overturned the ruling, highlighting that:
- M/s Whorra Brothers had not conducted business in the premises.
- Instead, a different firm, M/s Whorra Brothers and Company, had occupied the property without any legal rights.
- The appellate authority ruled that this constituted a vacancy under Section 12 of the Act and justified the release of the property.
The tenant appealed to the High Court, arguing that the appellate authority wrongly reassessed the evidence. They also claimed that the tenancy had been regularized in 1970 under Section 14 since the new firm was an extension of the original tenant.
However, the respondents (landlady’s side) countered that the two firms were separate entities, as M/s Whorra Brothers and Company was established only in 1973. Additionally, the tenant had not paid rent since 1979, and this fact remained undisputed in court records.
The High Court, after reviewing the case, held that:
- The petitioner (tenant) failed to prove that the two companies were the same entity.
- There was no evidence to show that the rent had been paid since 1979.
- The appellate authority had the right to reassess evidence to reach a fair judgment.
"The abuse of legal process is evident in this case," remarked Justice Bhatia.
The court further ruled that the landlady’s bonafide need for the property was unquestionable. Since the tenant was not using the premises themselves but had sublet it, they had no valid grounds to challenge the landlady's claim.
As a result, the petition was dismissed, and the tenant was ordered to pay ₹15 lakh as costs for withholding the property without rent.
"This Court expresses deep concern over how the landlady was harassed, leading to the loss of her son’s career opportunities. An unscrupulous tenant delayed proceedings for over 45 years without paying any rent," the court stated.
- The tenant must vacate the premises within three weeks.
- A penalty of ₹15 lakh has been imposed on the tenant for withholding the property without rent for 45 years.
- The ruling reinforces that landlord rights must be protected from tenants who misuse legal loopholes to delay eviction.
This judgment serves as a strong warning against prolonged property disputes and upholds the right of landlords to reclaim their properties when needed.
Case Title: Whorra Brothers v. Smt. Kastoori Devi And Another [WRIT - A No. - 1000097 of 1995]
Counsel for Petitioner : Virendra Mishra, Alok Sinha, Sandeep Dixit
Counsel for Respondent : Piyush Kumar Agarwal, Gaurav Mehrotra, Ms. Alina Masoodi
