Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S.U. Khan, J.
Ramesh Chandra - Appellant
Versus
Iiird Additional District Judge And Others - Respondents
Decided On : 09-08-2007
Sub-letting - Tenant's Writ Petition - U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, Section 20(4), Section 25(2) - The court discussed the provisions of the U. P. Urban Building Act, particularly Section 20(4) and Section 25(2), and their interpretation in the context of sub-letting. The court emphasized the binding nature of the agreement between the landlord and tenant, permitting sub-letting, and the requirement of written consent from the landlord and the District Magistrate for sub-letting. The court also highlighted the implications of absence of permission from the District Magistrate and the applicability of the Rent Control Act in determining the validity of sub-letting.
Fact of the Case:
This is a tenant's writ petition arising from a suit filed by the landlord for eviction on the grounds of default, material alteration, and sub-letting. The revisional court allowed eviction only on the ground of sub-letting. The main tenant claimed that sub-tenancy was permitted under a written agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The court affirmed the findings of the trial court regarding the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act to the tenant and material alteration. It held that the only question to be decided was that of sub-letting. The court found that the agreement of 1973 permitting sub-letting was binding upon the landlord, and the absence of permission from the District Magistrate did not warrant eviction on the ground of sub-letting.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of sub-letting, the binding nature of the 1973 agreement, and the requirement of permission from the District Magistrate for sub-letting.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the agreement of 1973 permitting sub-letting was binding upon the landlord, and the absence of permission from the District Magistrate did not warrant eviction on the ground of sub-letting.
Final Decision: The court quashed the finding of the revisional court that the tenant was liable to eviction on the ground of sub-letting. It also directed the chief-tenant to pay rent to the landlord at an enhanced rate, while clarifying the continued application of the Rent Control Act.
S.U. Khan, J.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This is tenant's writ petition arising out of S.C.C. Suit No. 39 of 1985, filed by landlord Arjun Singh-respondent No. 3, in this writ petition against petitioner-the main tenant and respondents No. 4 to 6-the subtenants. Eviction was sought on the ground of default, material alteration and sub-letting. Additional J.S.C.C. Agra, decided all the issues in favour of the tenant and dismissed the suit on 29.7.1997. Against the said judgment and decree, landlord respondent filed civil revision (ought to be S.C.C. Revision) No. 193 of 1999. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Agra, through judgment and order dated 6.4.2000, allowed the revision and decreed the suit for eviction only on the ground of sub-letting. In respect of default, both the courts below gave benefit of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, to the tenant as on the first date of hearing the tenant had deposited entire arrears of rent etc. Revisional court permitted the landlord to withdraw the said amount. Rent/damages @ Rs. 600 per month (as against the agreed rent of Rs. 220 per month) were also awarded by the revisional court pendente lite and future till eviction. This writ petition by the chief-tenant is directed against order dated 6.4.2000.
3. Revisional court affirmed the findings of the trial court in respect of benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act to the tenant as well as in respect of material alteration. Accordingly, the only question to be decided in this writ petition is that of sub-letting.
4. Sub-letting is admitted to the petitioner-chief-tenant, however his case is that under the written agreement sub-tenancy was permitted.
5. The tenancy in between the ancestors of the petitioner-chief-tenant and landlord respondent is continuing since before 1958. In the year 1958, Rameshwar Nath, advocate, was appointed as receiver over the property of the then landlord owner including property in dispute. On 30.5.1958, receiver entered into an agreement of tenancy with the ancestors of the chief-tenant, i.e., M/s. Babulal Gauri Shanker, true copy of the said agreement is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. In the agreement, it is mentioned that by virtue of order dated 26.10.1957, passed by the Civil Judge and with the consent of all the parties, who are joint owners of the premises, the said agreement was being executed by the receiver on behalf of the owners-landlords. In the said agreement, it was mentioned that tenants had made constructions over the premises from their own money and cost of the said construction amounting to Rs. 6,000 would be deducted from the monthly rent, which was agreed to be Rs. 100 per month. It was also agreed that at the time of eviction, tenants would not be entitled to remove any of the constructions made by them. It was also mentioned that tenants would be entitled to make any further addition and construction in the tenanted premises. Under Clause 6, it was specifically provided that tenants should not be entitled to sub-let the premises to any one else.
6. Thereafter, on 9.11.1973, another agreement took place in between Bihari Lal father of plaintiff, respondent No. 3, Arjun Singh and Ramesh Chandra petitioner tenant in chief. When second agreement of 1973 was executed, receiver was no more there over the property in dispute. In the said agreement, it was mentioned that since time of ancestors of Behari Lal, the ancestors of Ramesh Chandra were continuing as tenants of the property in question and that in between the ancestors of both the parties, it was agreed that the tenants could induct any partner in their business or could sub-let the tenanted property or part thereof and that at the time of eviction, tenant would handover the constructions made by him after receiving the market value and tenant would vacate alongwith sub-tenants. Thereafter, it was mentioned that ancestors of both the parties had left for thei
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
