Tenant ordered to vacate shop as landlord needs property for his unemployed son: Allahabad HC order

A landlord badly needs his property back to settle his unemployed son while his tenant who earns a living by running a shop on that property also has a pressing need for it. The Allahabad High Court recently heard this tenant eviction case.

Mr Chhabra (landlord) rented out his property in New Mandi, Muzaffarnagar, to Mr Bhalla for Rs 12,000 per month. Bhalla, according to per his submission to the court, had been paying the rent regularly to Chhabra; however, in 2022, Chhabra stopped accepting the rent.

While Chhabra claimed before the court that he wanted to evict Bhalla from his property under Section 21(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, as he intended to set up a business/shop for his unemployed son on that property. He even served an eviction notice to Bhalla under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, on March 19, 2024.


The Muzaffarnagar Rent Authority court rejected Chhabra’s tenant eviction case on February 13, 2025. Unhappy with the judgement, Chhabra subsequently filed an appeal before the district court. On May 13, 2026, the district court ordered tenant Bhalla to give up possession of the property. After which Bhalla filed an appeal before the Allahabad High Court invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, in his judgement dated September 23, 2026, rejected the tenant’s appeal and ordered his eviction but gave him six months, as requested by the tenant’s lawyer.

Also read: Tenant fails to get protection from eviction as he could not prove property owner's brother signed unregistered rent agreement with him; Madras HC order explained

Why did the tenant lose this case?

Advocate Shreya Sharma, Founder & CEO, Rest The Case, said to ET Wealth Online: The tenant lost this case because the Allahabad High Court interpreted Section 21(2)(m) of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 and held that the landlord genuinely needs the property for his unemployes son.

Bhalla’s principal legal argument was that the provision permits eviction only where the premises are required for the landlord’s own occupation, whereas in his case the landlord wanted the shop for his unemployed son to establish a business. The High Court rejected that argument.

The Allahabad High Court held that:

• A requirement connected to the landlord’s son/family member can qualify as the landlord’s requirement under Section 21(2)(m).
• However, this is not automatic merely because the person is the landlord’s son. There must be a genuine and legitimate nexus between the son's requirement and the landlord's circumstances and interests.
• In Bhalla's case, the Rent Authority had accepted the landlord's case and ordered eviction, and the Rent Tribunal had affirmed it.
• Bhalla could not establish before the High Court that these concurrent findings were based on no evidence, perversity, material error of law, or jurisdictional error.

Also read: Tenant to pay compensation with 6% interest to landlady for overstaying after rent agreement expiry and eviction notice; Delhi HC order

What does this judgement mean for tenants in general?

Sharma says that broadly there are four aspects based on this judgement which tenants should keep in mind:

1. “Landlord's requirement” is not restricted to the landlord physically using the premises

The judgment gives a broader interpretation to Section 21(2)(m). A landlord can potentially establish the statutory requirement even where the proposed business/use is by an immediate family member such as a son, provided the required nexus is established. Keshav Bhalla

2. A tenant cannot defeat such an eviction claim merely by saying: “It is the son's requirement, not the landlord's.”

That proposition has now been rejected in this judgment. The Court expressly said that the son's proposed occupation/business does not make the claim inadmissible at the threshold. Keshav Bhalla

3. Landlord's requirement must be genuine

The Allahabad High Court expressly said that a family member's requirement does not become the landlord's requirement merely because of the family relationship. This means that the landlord's circumstances and interest in getting back the rented property must be genuine and have a direct legitimate nexus and supported by evidence.

Also read: Landlord wanted to start law office, sought tenant’s eviction; Delhi HC upheld it for this reason

4. Legal issues

The Court also said that arguments such as alternative accommodation and comparative hardship cannot automatically be treated as independent statutory requirements under the 2021 Act, because those requirements were not incorporated into Section 21(2)(m) in the same manner as under the earlier rent-control regime.

That could be quite important for tenants because it means that old precedents/defences under the 1972 rent law cannot simply be transplanted into the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 without examining the new statutory language.

Allahabad High Court discussion

After a long discussion, the Allahabad High Court came to the conclusion that Section 21(2)(m) contemplates two separately structured contingencies.

The high court explained that the words “for the purpose of its occupation by landlord,” occurring after the expression “either in its existing form, or after demolition and new construction thereof,” are more naturally referable to the latter contingency.

The Allahabad High Court said that the expression “required by landlord,” occurring in the first limb cannot, therefore, be read as necessarily requiring the landlord himself to be in physical occupation of the premises.

However, the Allahabad High Court also cautioned that the requirement of a family member does not become the requirement of the landlord merely by reason of the relationship.

The Allahabad High Court said: “There must be a genuine and legitimate nexus between the requirement asserted and the circumstances and interest of the landlord.”

Like in this case the landlord Mr Chhabra (landlord) said that he needs the property for his unemployed son, as he (landlord) wants to make a business/shop for him (son) there.

The Allahabad High Court observed that the landlord pleaded that the disputed premises were required for his son, who was unemployed and intended to establish his business, which is a fact accepted by the rent authority, and so it directed tenant eviction.

The Allahabad High Court said that the tenant has not been able to demonstrate that the concurrent findings are founded on no evidence, that any material circumstance having a direct bearing upon the requirement was ignored, or that the conclusion reached is one that no reasonable authority, upon the material before it, could have reached.

The Allahabad High Court said that the appeal filed in the court is for genuineness, sufficiency, or factual basis of the requirement, which essentially invites a re-examination of the factual determinations already made by the lower authorities.

Hence, the Allahabad High Court said that such re-appreciation of evidence does not ordinarily fall within the scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.

However, this does not mean that such appeals cannot be filed, as the Allahabad High Court said that interference may, however, be warranted where the findings are shown to be perverse, arbitrary, based on no evidence, founded upon a material misdirection in law, or otherwise vitiated by jurisdictional error.

So, the tenant, in this case, failed to make his point, and thus, his appeal failed.

The Allahabad High Court said that the requirement pleaded for the unemployed son of the landlord, for the purpose of establishing his business, was considered by both the rent authority and the rent tribunal.

The Allahabad High Court said: “The concurrent findings in favour of the landlord have not been shown to be based on no evidence, to disregard any material circumstance, or to suffer from any error of jurisdiction, manifest error of law or perversity.”

Thus, the tenant was ordered to vacate the property within six months from the date of the order.