IMPORTANT POINTS
Tendering of rent to a person ceasing to be landlord and on his refusal to accept the same by depositing the rent in the court will not absolve the tenant from eviction.
Tenant constructing his own house in the same city and inducting his nephew as sub-tenant would be liable to be evicted.
Eviction suit by one co-sharer would be maintainable even if other co-sharers not joined as parties.
Tenants paying rent to original owner and on her death to her son, one co-sharer is estopped from denying ownership of another co-sharer in a suit u/s 21.

Headnote:(a) Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – Section 3(j) and 21 – In a compromise decree in title suit appellants declared joint owners of suit premises – Appellants filing instant suit u/s 21 – Tenant admitting tenancy under grandmother of appellants from whom they derived ownership of suit premises by compromise – High Court dismissing the same holding that appellants did not have locus to maintain the petition – Not sustainable. (Para 28, 29)
       (b) Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – Section 30 – Appellant serving notice dated 18.08.1989 on tenant to pay arrears of rent – Tenant offering to pay rent from October, 1989 to January, 1990 to brother of predecessor of appellants who ceased to be landlord, and on his refusal to accept, depositing the same in the court – Tenants rendered themselves defaulters – Sections 20(4) or 30 not complied with – Tenants liable for eviction. (Para 30)
       (c) Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – Section 20(4), Proviso – Tenant constructing his own house in the same city – Inducting his nephew as sub-tenant – Liable to be evicted. (Para 31)
       (d) Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – Section 20 and 21 – Eviction suit by one co-sharer – Maintainable even if other co-sharers not joined as parties. (Para 32)
       (1976) 4 SCC 184; (2002) 6 SCC 16; (2004) 3 SCC 178 – Relied upon
       (e) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 116 – Tenants paying rent to original owner and on her death to her son, one co-sharer – Estopped from denying ownership of another co-sharer in a suit u/s 21. (Para 33, 34)
       (1999) 7 SCC 474; (2006) 5 SCC 532 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
       The appellants as plaintiffs instituted Suit in the Court of Small Causes, Allahabad against Mishri Lal, the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents seeking his eviction from the suit premises on the ground of default in payment of rent and sub-letting of the suit premises without the knowledge and approval of the landlords i.e. the appellants.
       The Trial Court decreed the suit, both on the ground of default in payment of rent and sub-letting of the suit premises.
       This verdict was challenged by the original defendant/tenant in revision before the District Judge, Allahabad, who reversed the same.
       The High Court concurred with the Revisional Court and dismissed the suit of the appellants. The proceedings for eviction of the original defendant on the ground of bona fide requirement was also rejected.
       Finding of the Court:
       Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
       Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Amitava Roy, J.

Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. The appellants/plaintiffs (for short, hereinafter to be referred to as “the appellants”) are aggrieved by the dismissal of their suit and the application under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short, hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”) for eviction of the respondents from the suit premises on the ground, amongst others of default and bona fide requirement. The suit and the application filed under Section 21 of the Act have been dismissed in two separate proceedings by the High Court vide orders dated 25.02.2014 in W.P.(C) No. 26732 of 2010 and Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.31855 of 1998.

4. Both these petitions were analogously heard and thus the present adjudication would address collectively the issues involved.

5. We have heard Mr. Anand Varma, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. R.D. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondents.

6. The appellants as plaintiffs instituted Suit No. 252 of 1989 in the Court of Small Causes, Allahabad against Mishri Lal, the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents seeking his eviction from the suit premises on the ground of default in payment of rent and sub-letting of the suit premises without the knowledge and approval of the landlords i.e. the appellants. The appellants claimed themselves to be the joint owners of the suit premises since the death of their grandmother Chameli Devi, widow of late Mahabir Prasad on 30.07.1985. They referred to a will dated 28.12.1976 executed by their afore-named grand-mother in support of their claim of joint ownership. They averred that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents was a tenant of the suit premises since 1968 against payment of monthly rent of Rs. 96/- and the same was rented out on the clear understanding that the tenant would vacate the same on one month’s notice. The appellants alleged that the tenant i.e. the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents paid rent till October, 1979 and thereafter persistently failed to make payment thereof in spite of repeated demands. Due to such default, the relationship between the landlords and tenant became strained, and as claimed by the appellants, he without offering the rent to the landlords, made deposits thereof under Section 30 of the Act, which was invalid and non est in law. Situated thus, the appellants addressed a notice dated 18.08.1989 terminating the tenancy, demanding payment of the arrears of rent within the statutory period of one month with the clear indication that in case of failure to respond to the notice and the request for rent, the tenancy would stand determined and that the tenant would be liable for eviction. According to the appellants the notice was served on 26.08.1989, but despite the same, rent was not paid and consequently the tenancy stood terminated.

7. It was further alleged that the tenant also sub-let the suit premises to one Moti Chand for conducting his business therein. It was thus averred that on this ground as well, as the sub-letting was done without the knowledge and consent of the landlords, the tenant was liable for eviction. The suit was thus filed for recovery of arrears of rent, eviction of the tenant/defendant and for damages for unauthorised use or occupation of the tenanted premises as well as for interest.

8. The original defendant/tenant in his written statement though admitted the tenancy under Smt. Chameli Devi, the grand-mother of the appellants, he refused to acknowledge the appellants as his landlords. He claimed that the tenancy had commenced from 1957 and that he had paid rent up to the month of September, 1989 to the landlord, Bhola Nath (father of the appellants) and that on his refusal to accept the same thereafter, he had deposited the rent in court under Section 30 of the Act. The defendant/tenant admitted Smt. Chameli Devi to be the landlady who used to realize the rent till her life tim

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 Supreme(SC) 262

Cases Referred (5)