1. Dispute over vacancy of premises for allotment under Section 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 662
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AJAY RASTOGI, ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.
GEETA GUPTA – APPELLANT
VERSUS
RAMESH CHANDRA DWIVEDI & ORS – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4750 OF 2011
DECIDED ON : 20-09-2021
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :S.B.upadhyay, Kumud Lata Das, Y.K.S.Chauhan, Indu Kaul, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Anand Verma, Chitranka Naik, Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Kamlendra Mishra, Advocates
For the Appellant(s) :S.B.upadhyay, Kumud Lata Das, Y.K.S.Chauhan, Indu Kaul, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Anand Verma, Chitranka Naik, Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Kamlendra Mishra, Advocates
.
Headnote:
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – Section 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, – Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)(Amendment) Act, 1976 – Appeal, appellant who was writ petitioner before High Court at Allahabad has taken an exception to the Judgment and Order passed by learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court – Appellant is claiming to be owner of premises, Uttar Pradesh – Appellant acquired said premises by a sale deed executed by power of attorney holder on behalf of the original owners – Petitioner claimed that the physical possession of premises subject matter of sale deed was handed over to her by her vendors which includes two Gaddis, two godowns and a tin shed (collectively referred as “disputed premises”) which was earlier given by appellant’s vendor to one by way of tenancy – Held, Court direct first respondent to deposit all arrears of rent, if any, within a period of six weeks from today and thereafter, continue to regularly deposit rent in aforesaid proceedings – He can also pay amount to petitioner – Petitioner can always apply for withdrawal of rent amount in accordance with sub-section (3) of section 30 of said Act – If eviction proceedings are filed by petitioner, considering case of petitioner that she is deprived of benefit of disputed premises right from year 1994, concerned authority or Court, as case may be, shall give priority to disposal of eviction proceedings – Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant contends the tenant was inducted without authority; respondent claims authorized tenancy based on prior possession and consent of predecessors-in-title. (Para 5 , 7 , 8 )
3. The court found the tenant was inducted with the consent of the original owners prior to the statutory cutoff date, making the premises non-vacant. (Para 12 )
4. A tenant in occupation with the landlord's consent immediately before the commencement of the 1976 Amendment Act is deemed an authorized tenant under Section 14. (Para 11 , 13 )
5. Appeal dismissed; respondent directed to deposit rent arrears; eviction proceedings, if filed, to be prioritized. (Para 14 , 17 , 18 )
6. Who is considered an authorized tenant under Section 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act?
Any licensee or tenant in occupation of a building with the landlord's consent immediately before the commencement of the Amendment Act on 5th July 1976, provided no eviction suit or proceeding was pending against them on that date, is deemed an authorized tenant. (Para 11 )
7. How is the consent of the landlord inferred when a tenant is inducted by a manager or power of attorney holder?
Where original owners do not object to the induction of a tenant by their attorney or manager and fail to serve notice or file an eviction suit, it is inferred that the tenant was inducted with the owners' consent. (Para 12 )
8. What is the legal remedy for a landlord seeking to evict a tenant who has been deemed authorized under the Act?
The landlord cannot claim the premises are vacant for allotment but must instead initiate formal eviction proceedings by taking recourse to Section 20 or Section 21 of the Act. (Para 14 )
JUDGMENT :
ABHAY S.OKA, J.
1. By this appeal, the appellant who was the writ petitioner before the High Court at Allahabad has taken an exception to the Judgment and Order dated 9th October, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court.
2. The appellant is claiming to be the owner of premises No. 74/13, Collectorganj, Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. The appellant acquired the said premises by a sale deed dated 13th March, 1994 executed by power of attorney holder on behalf of the original owners Shri Vishnu Swaroop Mishra and Shri Gopal Swaroop Mishra. The petitioner claimed that the physical possession of the premises subject matter of the sale deed was handed over to her by her vendors which includes two Gaddis, two godowns and a tin shed (collectively referred as “the disputed premises”) which was earlier given by the appellant’s vendor to one Dhruv Narayan Tripathi by way of tenancy.
3. An application was made by the second respondent for allotment of the disputed premises by invoking Section 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the “the said Act”). The application was made on the premise that the disputed premises have fallen vacant in accordance with sub-section (4) of Section 12 of the said Act. On the basis of the said application, in accordance with Rule 8(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972, an inspection report dated 20th May 1995 was submitted to the District Magistrate. The report recorded that the first respondent-Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi was carrying on business in the disputed premises in the name and style of M/s Ramesh Chandra Pravesh Kumar. It was stated in the report that first respondent informed that he was inducted as a tenant by Shri Dhruv Narayan Tripathi in the disputed premises in November 1975 at monthly rent of Rs.500/-. The District Magistrate (Addl. City Magistrate-VI) while exercising the powers under the said Act held that on the basis of the agreement dated 15th November, 1975, the first respondent was inducted as a tenant by the said Dhruv Narayan Tripathi acting as a power of attorney holder and manager of the owners. He held that the original owners never objected to the action of the said Dhruv Narayan Tripathi. The Addl. City Magistrate held that the first respondent was in continuous possession as a tenant on the basis of the said agreement dated 15th November, 1975 and therefore, he has become a tenant of the disputed premises. Hence, it was held that the disputed premises were not vacant within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 12 of the said Act.
4. A writ petition was preferred by the petitioner against the said Judgment and Order of the Addl. City Magistrate, which was rejected by the impugned Judgment and Order dated 15th November, 1975.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant in support of the appeal submitted that the said Dhruv Narayan Tripathi had no authority to induct the first respondent as a tenant on behalf of the predecessors-in-title of the petitioner. She submitted that the said Dhruv Narayan Tripathi was the tenant inducted by the predecessors-in-title of the appellant. She submitted that on 5th July, 1976, the disputed premises were vacant. She submitted that the petitioner purchased the property in the year 1994 and from that day, she has not received any income from the disputed premises. She submitted that the writ petition before the Allahabad High Court was of the year 1997 which was decided on 09th October, 2009 and that the present appeal is of the year 2011. Thus, the submission is that during the last 27 years, the appellant has not received any benefit from the disputed premises.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Achal Misra v. Rama Shanker Singh & Ors., (2005) 5 SCC 531, Ram Murti Devi v. Pushpa Devi & Ors., (2017) 15 SCC 230
