Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
A. K. Yog, J.
DAYA RAM SHIV HARE - Appellant
Versus
VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, JALAUN AT ORAI - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 38794 Of 1999
Decided On : 12/03/1999
LANDLORD AND TENANT - NOTICE UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE U. P. URBAN BUILDINGS (REGULATION OF LETTING, RENT AND EVICTION) ACT, 1972 - VALIDITY - REQUIREMENTS - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 30(1) - SUB-LETTING - PROOF - SECTION 12(1)(B) AND SECTION 25 OF THE ACT.
Fact of the Case:
Landlord issued a notice to the tenant under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 20 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, seeking eviction, recovery of rent, and other dues. The notice did not specifically mention Section 30(1) of the Act, which requires the landlord to signify willingness to accept rent. The tenant deposited rent under Section 30(1) after the expiry of the notice period. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the revisional court allowed the landlord's revision and decreed the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the notice was valid and effective under Section 30(1) of the Act, even though it did not specifically mention the provision. The court also held that the tenant's deposit of rent after the expiry of the notice period was not a valid deposit. Further, the court found that the tenant had sub-let a portion of the shop to another person, which constituted a deemed vacancy under Section 12(1)(b) and a violation of Section 25 of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the notice issued by the landlord was valid and effective under Section 30(1) of the Act, despite not specifically mentioning the provision? 2. Whether the tenant's deposit of rent after the expiry of the notice period was a valid deposit under Section 30(1) of the Act? 3. Whether the tenant had sub-let a portion of the shop to another person, constituting a deemed vacancy under Section 12(1)(b) and a violation of Section 25 of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the notice was valid and effective under Section 30(1) of the Act, even though it did not specifically mention the provision. The court relied on the principle that a wrong label cannot vitiate an order that is otherwise within the power of the authority to make. The court also noted that the notice clearly indicated the landlord's willingness to accept rent by demanding arrears of rent. 2. The court held that the tenant's deposit of rent after the expiry of the notice period was not a valid deposit under Section 30(1) of the Act. The court reasoned that the deposit was not made within the notice period and that it was made after the landlord had expressed his willingness to accept rent. 3. The court found that the tenant had sub-let a portion of the shop to another person, which constituted a deemed vacancy under Section 12(1)(b) and a violation of Section 25 of the Act. The court noted that the tenant had allowed a person other than his family members to occupy a part of the shop and that the tenant had failed to produce evidence to deny the landlord's evidence of sub-letting.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the tenant's writ petition, upholding the revisional court's decision to allow the landlord's revision and decree the suit for eviction, recovery of rent, and other dues.
( 1 ) SUIT No. 18 of 1999 was filed by one Smt. Sarla Gupta in the Court of Judge Small Causes, orai, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
( 2 ) PLAINTIFF sought eviction of defendant tenant Daya Ram/petitioner, on the ground that tenant had not paid rent, he was a defaulter as he failed to pay rent, did not clear statutory liability to pay water tax and that the tenant had sub-let the shop in question to one Gauri Shanker, defendant No. 2 in the Suit (respondent No. 4 ).
( 3 ) A notice dated 21. 9. 1999 (Annexure-1a to the writ petition) purported to be under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act and under Section 20 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting. Rent and Eviction) Act. 1972 U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (for short called the Act), was issued determining tenancy and claiming eviction of the tenant, recovery of rent and other dues. There is no reference in the notice in question of Section 30 of the Act.
( 4 ) BY means of said notice (Annexure-la to the writ petition), landlord informed that he was liable for eviction on ground of sub-letting, without consent of the landlord, default for non-payment of rent and water tax due for more than four months and determined the tenancy asking the tenant to handover possession of the shop after expiry of 30 days.
( 5 ) IN para 5 of the said notice, landlord specifically demanded rent for period of 1st July. 1984 to 16th September. 1990 as well as certain amount towards water tax. Initially suit was decreed by trial court vide judgment and order dated 11. 11. 1992. Tenant filed Revision (JSCCR No. 8 of 1992) it was allowed on the ground Judgment of the trial court was in accordance with law as far as question of liability to pay water tax by the tenant was concerned in the instant case the revisional Court by means of Judgment and order dated 21. 9. 1994 remanded the case back for deciding the case afresh.
( 6 ) IN paras 10 and 11 of the writ petition it is alleged that an amendment application was filed by the landlord-respondent No. 3 and another amendment application was filed by the petitioner-tenant for amending the written statement (Annexure-6 to the writ petition ). It is alleged that no orders were passed on the said application. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the ground contained in paras 10 and 11 of the writ petition. I find that no legal ground has been taken in the writ petition with reference to the averments contained in paras 10 and 11 of the writ petition. Oral arguments at the hearing on the basis of averments contained in paras 10 and 11 of the writ petition shall be treated as not pressed.
( 7 ) THE Court of Judge Small Causes after receipt of the case on remand dismissed the suit vide judgment and order dated 13. 12. 1996 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition ).
( 8 ) SMT. Sarla Gupta, plaintiff filed Judge Small Causes Court Revision No. 1 of 1997. Aforesaid revision has been allowed by respondent No. 1/vth Additional District Judge. Jalaun (at Oral)vide judgment and order dated 5. 8. 1999 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition ).
( 9 ) TENANT-PETITIONER has now come up before this Court by filing writ petition under Article 226, constitution of India and seeks for issuance of a direction to quash order dated 5. 8. 1999.
( 10 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
( 11 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions.
( 12 ) THE notice (Annexure-1a to the writ petition) under Section 106, I. P. C. and Section 20 of the act could not be treated as notice contemplated under Section 30 (I) of the Act. According to him, plaintiff ought to have indicated that notice was under Section 30 (1) of the Act.
( 13 ) THE argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that by not mentioning Section 30 (1) of the Act in the notice (Annexure-la to the writ petition) and not expressing clearly and categorically that he was prepared to accept rent as contemplated under Se
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
