1. Eviction suit filed by landlord on grounds of non-payment of rent and expiry of tenancy agreement under the UP Rent Act. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 1151
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. K. MAHESHWARI, RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.
Prakash Bhalotia (D) Thr His Lrs – Appellants
Versus
Indra Chandra Goyal (D) Thru. Lrs – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 10855 of 2024 [@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 24041 of 2013]
Decided On : 25-09-2024
Important Points
The court established that consistent non-payment of rent during proceedings justifies eviction under the UP Rent Act.
Subject
Civil Law - Landlord-Tenant Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Sections 20 and 30 - Eviction suit - Appeal against dismissal of eviction suit for non-payment of rent - Tenant failed to pay rent regularly during the pendency of the suit - Court held that the findings of the Trial Court were perverse and set aside the dismissal, allowing eviction. (Paras 22, 27)
(B) Jurisdiction of High Court - Revisional jurisdiction in eviction matters - High Court must examine material and findings of lower courts; failure to do so can lead to unjust outcomes. (Paras 24, 26)
Facts of the case:
The appellant landlord filed for eviction against the tenant for non-payment of rent after the tenancy expired. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, which was affirmed by the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The tenant was found to be in default of rent payments, justifying eviction. The lower courts' findings were deemed perverse.
Issues: Whether the tenant was in default of rent payments and if the High Court should have intervened in the lower court's findings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of regular rent payments under the UP Rent Act and the High Court's duty to review lower court findings adequately.
Result: Appeal allowed, eviction ordered.
(B) Jurisdiction of High Court - Revisional jurisdiction in eviction matters - High Court must examine material and findings of lower courts; failure to do so can lead to unjust outcomes. (Paras 24, 26)
Facts of the case:
The appellant landlord filed for eviction against the tenant for non-payment of rent after the tenancy expired. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, which was affirmed by the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The tenant was found to be in default of rent payments, justifying eviction. The lower courts' findings were deemed perverse.
Issues: Whether the tenant was in default of rent payments and if the High Court should have intervened in the lower court's findings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of regular rent payments under the UP Rent Act and the High Court's duty to review lower court findings adequately.
Result: Appeal allowed, eviction ordered.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Amitabh Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Rahul Shukla, Adv. Mrs. Bachita Baruah Shukla, Adv. Mr. Barbeshwar Bhalotia, Adv. Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Aarohi Bhalla, Adv. Mr. Anupam Mishra, AOR Mr. Harikumar V., Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Amitabh Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Rahul Shukla, Adv. Mrs. Bachita Baruah Shukla, Adv. Mr. Barbeshwar Bhalotia, Adv. Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Aarohi Bhalla, Adv. Mr. Anupam Mishra, AOR Mr. Harikumar V., Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Landlord alleges rent default and unauthorized occupation; tenant claims statutory protection under the UP Rent Act and denies default in rent payment. (Para 4 , 5 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
3. Tenant failed to prove regular monthly rent deposits; lump-sum payments following court directions do not cure defaults under the UP Rent Act. (Para 15 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
4. Contractual tenancy converts to statutory tenancy under rent control laws; continuous default in rent payment justifies eviction despite statutory protection. (Para 13 , 23 , 25 )
5. Appeal allowed, lower court orders set aside, and suit for eviction decreed on grounds of non-payment of rent. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 )
6. How does a contractual tenancy transition to a statutory tenancy under rent control legislation?
A contractual tenancy for a limited period is converted into a statutory tenancy by the operation of Rent Control Legislation, meaning the tenant continues to be protected by the Act after the contract expires. (Para 23 , 25 )
7. Under what conditions can a statutory tenant be evicted for non-payment of rent under the UP Rent Act?
Eviction is maintainable if the tenant is in arrears for at least four months and fails to pay the landlord within one month of the service of a notice of default. (Para 13 )
8. Does depositing rent in a lump sum after court directions absolve a tenant from eviction for default?
No. Protection under Section 20(4) requires unconditional payment of entire arrears, damages, and interest at the first hearing; subsequent lump-sum deposits do not rectify continuous monthly defaults. (Para 13 , 21 , 22 )
9. What is the scope of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction in rent eviction matters?
The High Court can examine the propriety of the lower court's decision and interfere to rectify errors or improprieties by examining the records, rather than merely refusing re-appraisal of evidence. (Para 24 )
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenging the judgment dated 22.01.2001 passed in Suit No. 1 of 1992 by Small Causes Court dismissing the suit for eviction filed by landlord due to ‘nonpayment of rent’, ‘subletting’, and ‘expiry of rent agreement’, as affirmed by the High Court vide impugned judgment dated 31.01.2013, the present appeal has been filed.
3. The facts leading are that appellant (now deceased) was the owner of Shop No. 4 (Western Direction) situated in Mohalla Begupur, Muglani, Ram Prasad Bhalotia Market, District Gorakhpur city with the prescribed boundaries shown in the suit. The defendant/respondent (now deceased) was inducted as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 330/. The tenancy was for a fixed period of five years, which started from 01.07.1985 and ended on 30.06.1990. As per the terms of tenancy, on expiry of period of five years, the tenant may continue with increase of rent @ 15 % per month provided the same is agreeable to the owner.
4. It was averred in the suit that neither plaintiff – landlord intimated about construction of shop to Municipality nor Municipality recorded the same on its own and did the tax assessment of the shop in 1972. On objections being raised by plaintiff/landlord, the same was admitted by the Municipality. The plea of subletting has also been averred, but it is not being dealt here as the said ground has not been pressed during hearing. As contended, after expiry of the period of tenancy, it was not renewed by consent and the respondent – tenant became unauthorized occupant of the shop. However, as per agreement, for the period of overstay, he ought to pay Rs. 1,000/ per month. Therefore, due to nonpayment of rent, notice was issued for termination of tenancy, which was not responded to by defendant/respondent – tenant.
5. On filing suit, defendant entered appearance and filed the written statement, interalia, stating that plaintiff did not have right to bring the suit, and claimed protection under Section 20 of The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “UP Rent Act”). It was averred that, prior to the fresh tenancy agreement dated 13.03.1986, which was from 01.07.1985 for five years, defendant was a tenant since 1977, therefore, being in continuous tenancy, the same would not extinguish and he would be entitled to protection available under Section 20 of the UP Rent Act, if rent is deposited in the Court under Section 30 of the said Act.
6. Learned Trial Court, on Issue No. 4 noted that from the agreement it can be determined that the tenancy was not for a definite period of five years. On Issue No. 5 it was held that the benefit under Section 20(4) of the UP Rent Act is available to the tenant. Further, Issue No. 6 which relates to default in payment of the rent, it was concluded against the landlord and in favour of tenant and hence, suit was dismissed.
7. The revision filed against the judgment of the Trial Court was dismissed by the High Court, observing that in revisional jurisdiction, reappraisal of evidence is not permissible, and consequently findings of the Trial Court were affirmed.
8. Being dissatisfied, the present appeal has been preferred, interalia, submitting that tenancy was for 5 years, and ended on 30.06.1990. The tenancy was monthly in nature and the rent was payable on monthtomonth basis. As per Clause 14, such tenancy may be extendable, by consent of the landlord with monthly increase of rent @ 15%, after entering into registered agreement. In absence thereof, Clause 6 of the agreement would attract and the defendant be treated an unauthorized occupant and liable to pay Rs. 1000/ per month as penalty for overstay.
9. It is contended that the rent and the penalty, as agreed in the lease agreement, has not been deposited even on receipt of the notice by the Court within the time and the respondent – tenant was in default of payment of rent even during pendency of proceedings. This Court v
