1. Petition for release of premises under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 — Dispute over ownership and bonafide requirement. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 1274
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, A.S. BOPANNA, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
Santosh Chaturvedi – Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Kailash Chandra & Anr. – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6572 OF 2010
Decided on : 15-11-2019
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
When the landlord has established that he is the owner of the property and the same is required for his bonafide occupation, the release of the premises is required to be made.
When the landlord has established that he is the owner of the property and the same is required for his bonafide occupation, the release of the premises is required to be made.
Subject
Property Law - Landlord and Tenant
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Section 21 (1)(a) - Eviction suit - Summary proceedings - Jural relationship of landlord and tenant only relevant - Determining title of landlord out of purview unless tenant sets up a case for his title - Instantly Prescribed Authority not framing any issue on title. (Para 10)
(b) Property law - Title - Father of appellant acquiring full ownership of property by a registered partition deed - Transferring a part of the property to his son by a family arrangement - Enquiry into appellant’s title in an eviction suit wholly unnecessary, moreover when the Prescribed authority did not frame any issue as regards title. (Para 14)
(c) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 9 and 109 - Transfer of property by owner - Tenant automatically becomes tenant of the transferee. (Para 15)
(d) Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Section 21 (1)(a) - Appellant-landlord establishing his ownership - Also establishing his bona fide requirement - Release of the premises cannot be denied. (Para 17)
Facts of the case:
The appellant herein instituted a petition against the predecessor of the respondents herein seeking release of the premises. The Prescribed Authority dismissed the petition declining the release of the shop/premises in question.
The Appellate Judge allowed the appeal.
The respondents filed writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court. The Single Judge reversed the judgment passed by the Appellate Court.
Finding of the Court:
When the appellant has established that he is the owner of the property and the same is required for his bonafide occupation, the release of the premises is required to be made.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- property law
- family law
- practice and procedure
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Rajiv Dutta, Vikas Singh Jangra, Amit Kumar Pathak, Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent:Purnima Bhat, Advocate
For the Appellant :Rajiv Dutta, Vikas Singh Jangra, Amit Kumar Pathak, Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent:Purnima Bhat, Advocate
Table of Contents
2. Appellant claims summary proceedings require only basic landlord-tenant relationship; Respondent contends property is not coparcenary and ownership transfer via family settlement is invalid. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. Summary rent proceedings do not require rigorous title examination unless tenant claims adverse title; ownership transfer via family settlement is binding on the tenant. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
4. In summary eviction proceedings, establishing the jural relationship of landlord and tenant suffices; rigorous title examination is unnecessary unless the tenant asserts an adverse title. (Para 10 , 14 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court and Prescribed Authority orders set aside — Appellate Court order restored — Respondents directed to vacate premises. (Para 18 , 19 )
6. To what extent should ownership be examined in summary proceedings under the Rent Act?
Such proceedings are summary in nature; the jural relationship of landlord and tenant is sufficient. Rigorous examination of ownership, as in a title suit, is unnecessary unless the tenant sets up a title to the property that is adverse to that of the landlord. (Para 10 , 14 )
7. What is the legal effect of a landlord transferring property to another person on the existing tenancy?
Under Sections 8 and 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, upon the transfer of property by the owner, the tenant automatically becomes the tenant of the transferee. (Para 15 )
8. Can a tenant challenge the validity of a family settlement used by the landlord to transfer ownership?
No. If the admitted owner transfers property via settlement, the title cannot be questioned by a tenant, as the validity of such a settlement is a matter for other family members, not the occupant. (Para 14 , 15 )
9. How is the bonafide requirement for release of premises determined when hardship is claimed by both parties?
The court evaluates the necessity of the premises for the landlord's business and compares the hardship faced by the landlord if the premises are not released against the hardship faced by the tenant. (Para 17 )
JUDGMENT
A.S. Bopanna, J.
The appellant is before this Court assailing the order dated 28.11.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.54204/2007. Through the said order the High Court has allowed the Writ Petition filed by the respondents herein and has set aside the judgment and order dated 09.10.2007 passed by the Special Judge, Mathura in P.A. Appeal No. 1/2002 whereby the order dated 03.08.2001 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Upper Civil Judge (C.D.) is upheld. The appellant is, therefore, aggrieved and is before this Court.
2. The appellant herein instituted the petition under Section 21 (1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rent Act" for short) against the predecessor of the respondents herein seeking release of the premises bearing No.83/72A, Tiwari Gali, Chhatta Bazar, Mathura. The suit was registered as petition No.6/2000 before the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority having taken into consideration the rival contentions, on holding that the appellant herein cannot claim ownership right over the coparcenary property and in that light on arriving at the conclusion that the appellant is not the landlord of the respondents and also holding that the bonafide requirement does not exist, had dismissed the petition declining the release of the shop/premises in question.
3. The appellant claiming to be aggrieved by the same had filed the appeal in P.A. Appeal No. 1/2002 before the Appellate Authority, namely, the Special Judge, Mathura. The learned Appellate Judge on reappreciating the entire aspect of the matter had arrived at the conclusion that the appellant herein had lawfully become the owner of the property and in that circumstance considering the predecessor of the respondents herein to be the tenant under the appellant had further examined the matter with regard to the bonafide requirement. Accordingly, the learned Appellate Judge had arrived at the conclusion that the case for release of the property is made out and had accordingly allowed the appeal. While so considering the matter, the learned Appellate Judge had also taken into consideration that an alternative shop bearing No.83/9-C situated at Chhatta Bazar, Mathura measuring 2.5 ft. x 26 ft. standing in the name of the father of the appellant which was vacant be allotted in favour of the respondents so as to mitigate the hardship, if any. In that view, the respondents were directed to vacate the premises in question by taking possession of the said alternative shop No.83/9-C within one month.
4. The respondents herein claiming to be aggrieved by the said order dated 09.10.2007 had filed the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in C.M.W.P. No.54204/2007. The learned Single Judge has in fact considered the matter in great detail, more particularly with regard to the claim of ownership made by the appellant herein and keeping in view the provisions contained in the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 has arrived at the conclusion that the appellant cannot be considered as a coparcener in respect of the premises in question. Hence the learned Single Judge has also taken a similar view as arrived at by the Prescribed Authority/learned Upper Civil Judge and in that light has reversed the judgment passed by the Appellate Court. The appellant, therefore, claiming to be aggrieved is before this Court in this appeal.
5. We have heard Mr. Rajiv Dutta, learned senior advocate along with Mr. Vikas Singh Jangra, learned advocate on behalf of the appellant, Ms. Purnima Bhat, learned advocate on behalf of the respondents and perused the appeal papers.
6. The learned senior advocate for the appellant would contend that the authorities prescribed under the Rent Act in issue had considered the matter and though divergent opinions were expressed, the Appellate Court had in fact apprecia
