Back
2002 Supreme(SC) 263
2002(6) Supreme 63
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri & Doraiswamy Raju, JJ.
Udhav Ram -Appellant
versus
Vani Tripathi -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6228 of 1999
Decided 21-2-2002
IMPORTANT POINT
Requirement of notice under Section 21(a)(1) proviso of U.P. Rent Control Act is that six months period should elapse between issuance of notice and filing of application and requirements and formalities of Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act could not be imported.
Headnote:Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972-Section 21(a)(1) proviso-Eviction petition on ground of bona fide requirement of personal occupation-Respondent land lady had purchased suit property on 28-5-1985 and immediately issued notice to appellant tenant-Again on June, 1991 she issued second notice and filed eviction petition in May 1992-Question for consideration whether requirement of notice under first proviso to Section 21(a)(1) of the Act was satisfied-What is required under proviso is that six months period should elapse between issuance of notice and filing of application-Requirements and formalities of Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act could not be imported to such notice-Eviction order called for no interference. (Para 8)
(ii) Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 -Section 21(1)(a)-Eviction petition on ground of personal bona fide need-Question of comparative hardship-High Court rejected contention in writ petition holding that ground was considered by appellate authority on assessment of evidence and it declined to go into reappreciating of evidence-No illegality in the view taken by High Court. (Para 9)
ORDER
In this appeal, the appellant-tenant challenges the order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in C.M.W.P. No. 1059 of 1999 dated 12.1.1999.
2. The question that arises for consideration is: whether the High Court is right in holding that requirement of notice under the first proviso to clause (a) of sub-section 1 of section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, was satisfied.
3. The respondent is the landlady of premises No. 20/189 Chatai Mohal, Kanpur (for short the premises ). She purchased the said premises on May 28, 1985. Immediately thereafter she issued a notice to the appellant to vacate the premises. However, again on June 1, 1991, she issued the second notice. In May 1992, she filed eviction petition No. 8 of 1992 before the prescribed authority under section 21(1)(a) of the said Act, for seeking eviction of the appellant from the premises for her bona fide requirement of personal occupation. The appellant contested the petition denying the bona fide requirement for the respondent and also service of notice under the first proviso to section 21(1) of the said Act. The prescribed authority dismissed the application of the respondent on the ground that the requirements of the proviso of the said section were not satisfied. However, on appeal by the respondent, the appellant authority under the said Act, reversed the order of the prescribed authority and ordered eviction of the appellant from the premises. The appellant challenged the validity of the said order dated 30-11-1998 in C.M.W.P. No. 1059 of 1999 in the High Court of judicature at Allahabad. On 12th January, 1999, the High Court dismissed the writ petition declining to interfere with the order of the appellate authority. That order is assailed in this appeal by special leave.
4. To appreciate the question involved in this case, it would be necessary to quote section 21 insofar as it is relevant for our purpose.
"Section 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 it is satisfied that any of the following ground exists namely-
(a) that the building is bona fide 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) ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ...
... ... ... ...
Provided that where the building was in the 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:
Provided further that if any application under clause (a) is made in respect of (any building let out exclusively for nonresidential purposes), the prescribed authority while making the order of eviction shall, after considering all relevant facts of the case, award against the landlord to the tenant (an amount not exceeding two years rent) as compensation and may, subject to rules, impose such other conditions as it thinks fit:
Provided also that the prescribed authority shall, except in cases provided for in the explanation, take into account the likely h
