IMPORTANT POINT
Any proceedings initiated for release of building under occupation of tenant u/s 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 after the period continuplated (viz 3 years 6 months after purchase) does not require the service of aforesaid notice of six months under first proviso to Section 21(1) of the Act.

Headnote:U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972-Section 21(1)(a)-Eviction respondent-landlord required the shop for the personal bonafide requirement-Contention that the proceedings initiated by the landlord were not maintainable under first proviso to Section 21(1) of the Act as no notice in terms of the aforesaid proviso was served upon the tenants-appellant-Whether such notice was necessary in the facts of the case-Whether eviction was rightly ordered-Very old Tenant so time granted to vacats on normal undertaking-Appeal dismissed accordingly.
       After discussing law on interpretation of welfare statute :
       Held : The proviso and the notice contemplated under it was never intended to be permanent clog on the rights of the purchaser. The period contemplated for not initiating the eviction against the tenant on the ground as specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act was intended to be for a period of three years and and in no case for more than three years and six months. Any proceedings initiated for release of building under occupation of tenant on the aforesaid ground after the period contemplated under the aforesaid proviso does not require the service of aforesaid notice of six months. In the instant case the respondent-landlord purchased the shop no. 2.8.1979 whereafter the father of the appellant attorned him as his landlord. After the death of his father in the year 1989, the appellant started paying the rent and, therefore, became a tenant of the respondent-landlord entitled to the protections guaranteed to a statutory tenant under the Act. To seek his eviction, the respondent-landlord was obliged to prove that the leased premises were bonafide required by him for his occupation by himself or any member of his family or any person for whose benefit the property was held by him. In the present case, the respondent-landlord successfully proved the existence of the aforesaid ground which was concurrently upheld by the appellate court. Looking from any angle we do not find any substance in the appeal and are not inclined to interfere with the order of eviction passed against the appellant. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed without any order as to costs. At this stage the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that as his client s family is in possession of the shop for more than 70 years, a reasonable time be given to him for finding an alternative accommodation and vacating the shop. We feel that the interests of justice would be served if the appellant is given time to vacate the premises on or before 31st December, 2002 subject to his furnishing of the usual undertaking within four weeks. (Paras 10 to 13)

JUDGMENT

Sethi, J.-The appellant is the tenant of a shop regarding which order of eviction was passed by the Prescribed Authority on 16.12.1997. After dismissal of his appeal, he moved the High Court by way of a writ petition which was dismissed vide the judgment impugned in this appeal. It has been concurrently held by the Prescribed Authority, the Appellate Court and the High Court that the respondent-landlord required the shop for his personal bonafide requirements.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that as the proceedings initiated by the respondent-landlord were not maintainable under first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the Prescribed Authority, First Appellate court and the High Court committed a mistake of law by directing the appellant s eviction. It is contended that as no notice in terms of the aforesaid proviso was served upon the appellant-tenant, no cause of action accrued to the respondent-landlord for seeking his eviction under the provisions of the Act.

3. Undisputed facts of the case are that father of the appellant became a tenant of one Mushabbar Ali Khan in respect of the shop in the year 1930 on payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 4/- per month. The erstwhile owner of the shop migrated to Pakistan leaving no heirs. The tenant started paying rent to the Regional Settlement Commissioner since the shop had vested in the custodian. The said shop was purchased by one Mr. M.D. Malik who, by operation of law, became the landlord of the father of the appellant. The respondent purchased the shop on 2.8.1979 from Dr. M.D. Malik. The father of the appellant, the original tenant died somewhere in 1989. As the appellant-tenant had not paid the rent, the respondent-landlord issued a notice to him on 6.2.1995 calling upon for payment of arrears of rent. He filed an application for release of the shop under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act against the appellant-tenant. The petition was resisted on various grounds including its non-maintainability in the absence of six months notice required as per first proviso of Section 21 of the Act.

4. Rejecting the prayer of the appellant, the Prescribed Authority directed his eviction. His appeal and the writ petition filed against the aforesaid orders also stood rejected.

5. Section 21 of the Act provides :

"21. Proceedings for release of building under occupation of tenant-(1) The prescribed authority may, on an application of the landlord in that behalf, order the eviction of a tenant from the building under tenancy or any specified part thereof if it is satisfied that any of the following grounds exits namely -

(a) that the building is bonafide required either in its existing form or after demolition and new construction by the landlord for occupation by himself or any member of his family, or any person for whose benefit it is held by him, either for residential purposes or for purposes of any profession, trade or calling, or where the landlord is the trustee of a public charitable trust, for the objects of the trust;

(b) xxx xx xx

Provided that where the building was in occupation of a tenant since before its purchase by the landlord, such purchase being made after the commencement of this Act, no application shall be entertained on the grounds, mentioned in clause (a), unless a period of three years has elapsed since the date of such purchase and the landlord has given a notice in that behalf to the tenant not less than six months before such application, and such notice may be given even before the expiration of the aforesaid period of three years.

xx xx xx"

6. While dismissing the writ petition of the appellant, the High Court observed :

"Under First Proviso to Section 21(1)(a) of the Act, I hold no six months notice is required in a case where `three years hav

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 1491

Cases Referred (1)