Back
Allahbad High Court
N.D.OJHA
Chhakki Lal - Appellant
Versus
IIIrd Additional District Judge Mainpuri - Respondent
Decided On : 10/11/1976
UP URBAN BUILDINGS (REGULATION OF LETTING, RENT AND EVICTION) ACT, 1972 - SECTION 21, 23 - APPLICATION FOR RELEASE OF ACCOMMODATION - SUB-TENANT - JURISDICTION OF PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY - INQUIRY INTO NATURE OF POSSESSION - BONA FIDE NEED OF LANDLORD - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
Subhash Chandra, the landlord, filed an application under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, against Ugra Sen for release of a shop on the grounds of dilapidated condition and bona fide need for his own use. Ugra Sen claimed to have vacated the shop and that Chhakki Lal, the petitioner, was the tenant. The application was amended to include a claim for ejectment of Chhakki Lal as a sub-tenant. The Prescribed Authority dismissed the application as not maintainable under Section 21, but the Additional District Judge held that the application was maintainable and remanded the case for a fresh decision.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the application under Section 21 was maintainable even if the petitioner was a sub-tenant, as the real question was whether the landlord's need was bona fide. The court also held that the Prescribed Authority had jurisdiction to inquire into the nature of possession of any person other than the person named as the tenant in the application, in order to determine whether such person was a tenant or a sub-tenant. The court further held that the Prescribed Authority should have first determined the status of the petitioner and Ugra Sen before deciding the application for release.
Issues: 1. Whether an application under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, is maintainable against a sub-tenant. 2. Whether the Prescribed Authority has jurisdiction to inquire into the nature of possession of a person other than the person named as the tenant in the application. 3. Whether the Prescribed Authority should have first determined the status of the petitioner and Ugra Sen before deciding the application for release.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 21 of the Act contemplates an application by the landlord for release of accommodation in his favour on the ground that it is required bona fide either in its existing form or after demolition and new construction by him for occupation by himself or any member of his family. 2. If ejectment of a sitting tenant is sought on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord, a suit under Section 20 cannot be instituted. 3. In a case of sub-letting, the landlord can still institute a suit for ejectment of the tenant under Section 20 if he has sub-let the accommodation as contemplated by clause (e) of sub-section (2) to that section. 4. Even in a case of sub-letting, the landlord can make an application under Section 21 provided he needs the accommodation bona fide for his own use. 5. In proceedings under Section 23 for enforcement of an eviction order, if any person other than the person against whom an order of eviction has been passed, claims to be in possession, the nature of his possession would have to be enquired into. 6. If it is shown by such person that he is occupying the accommodation in his own right, for instance as a tenant, he cannot be evicted by enforcing an order to which he was not a party. 7. On the other hand, if his possession is only on behalf of the tenant against whom the order for eviction has been passed, for instance as a sub-tenant within the meaning of Section 25 (1) of the Act or as a licensee, such person can be evicted under Section 23 while enforcing the eviction order passed against the tenant.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition and directed the Prescribed Authority to decide the application under Section 21 afresh, after determining the status of the petitioner and Ugra Sen and considering the bona fide need of the landlord.
2. It was heard by the Third Additional District Judge, Mainpuri. He came to the conclusion that irrespective of the allegation introduced in it by amendment the application was maintainable inasmuch as the real question which had to be decided by the Prescribed Authority was as to whether the need of respondent No. 2 was bona fide. He also held that the need of respondent No. 2 had to be compared with that of the tenant respondent No. 3. it is this order of the Additional District Judge which is sought to be quashed in the present writ Petition.
2. It was urged by counsel for the petitioner that on the allegation that the petitioner was a sub-tenant the application filed by respondent No. 2 was not maintainable under Section 21. His only remedy was to file a suit under Section 20. I find myself unable to agree. Under Section 20 it is only if the case falls within one of the contingencies provided for in sub-section (2) thereof that a suit for eviction of a tenant can be instituted. One of the contingencies as contained in Clause (e) is that if the tenant has sub-let in contravention of the provisions of Section 25, or as the case may be, of the old Act the whole or any part of the building a suit for ejectment can be instituted against him. Section 21 on the other hand, contemplates an application by the landlord for release of the accommodation in his favour on the ground that it is required bona fide either in its existing form or after demolition and new construction by him for occupation by himself or any member of his family. If ejectment of a sitting tenant is sought on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord a suit under Section 20 cannot be instituted. On the other hand, even if the landlord may not be in need of the accommodation, he can yet institute a suit for ejectment of the tenant under Section 20 if he has sub-let the accommodation as contemplated by clause (e) of sub-section (2) to that section. Even in a case of sub-letting as aforesaid I am of opinion that since no decree for ejectment of a tenant on the ground of the bona fide need of the landlord can be passed under Section 20 it would still be open to the landlord not to file a suit under Section 20 but to make an application under Section 21 provided up needs the accommodation bona fide for his own use. In such a case a decree under Section 20 would serve no purpose unless the landlord after getting the tenant evicted succeeds in getting the building released in his favour and for that he will again have to make an application for release, of course, in that event under Section 16 and not under Section 21 of the Act. If on the other hand, an order for release is passed under Section 21 on the ground
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
