Section 21(2)(m), UP Tenancy Act 2021: Landlord's requirement excludes bona fide necessity and comparative hardship tests.

The petitioner, a tenant of a non-residential shop in Kanpur Nagar at a monthly rent of Rs. 500/-, challenged an eviction order passed by the Rent Authority and affirmed by the Rent Tribunal

The respondent-landlord sought eviction under Section 21(2)(m) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 ("Act, 2021"), asserting that the premises were required for business expansion—specifically to shift a furniture workshop to the ground floor

The petitioner contested the application, alleging a lack of genuine need, the availability of alternative accommodations, and the absence of "bona fide" necessity as required under the erstwhile U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972

The Rent Authority allowed the release on June 19, 2025, solely on the ground of personal requirement under Section 21(2)(m), a finding upheld by the Rent Tribunal on January 30, 2026

Whether, under Section 21(2)(m) of the Act, 2021, a landlord is required to satisfy the test of "bona fide need" and "comparative hardship" as contemplated under the repealed U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972

Whether the expression "required" in the Act, 2021 implies an objective element of "necessity" or "reasonableness" that the Court must scrutinize

The court primarily applied Section 21(2)(m) of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, which permits eviction if the premises are "required by landlord... for the purpose of its occupation"

Section 21(1)(a) of the repealed U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, which explicitly mandated proving "bona fide requirement" and "comparative hardship"

The court relied on the doctrine of casus omissus, citing Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd. v. Bombay Iron & Steel Labour Board [para 23] and State of Jharkhand v. Govind Singh [para 25], establishing that courts cannot supply words (like "bona fide") that the legislature has consciously omitted.

It adopted the interpretation of "requires" from Ireland v. Taylor, holding that it signifies a genuine intention to occupy rather than objective "need" or "reasonableness"

The Court observed that the Act, 2021 represents a "paradigm shift" intended to simplify eviction proceedings

By comparing the 1972 and 2021 statutes, the Court found the omission of the phrases "bona fide requirement" and "comparative hardship" to be a conscious legislative departure

Applying the literal rule of interpretation, the Court reasoned that the landlord is the "sole arbiter" of his requirements; provided the intention to occupy is real and not a pretense, the court cannot substitute its assessment of "reasonableness"

The Court rejected the petitioner's reliance on Phiroze Bamanji Desai and Shiv Sarup Gupta, noting those decisions were rooted in different statutory frameworks that explicitly required "bona fide" or "reasonable" necessity

In this case, since the landlord pleaded a specific need for expansion and the tenant failed to produce cogent evidence to dislodge that assertion, the statutory requirement under Section 21(2)(m) was satisfied

The orders of the Rent Authority and Tribunal were found to be in consonance with the statutory scheme

The Court granted eight months (until December 2, 2026) to vacate the premises, subject to filing an undertaking and paying "use and occupation charges" of Rs. 2,000/- per month