Back
2019 Supreme(All) 1636
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
Rupesh Agarwal - Appellant
Versus
Devendra Kumar Nagariya and Another - Respondents
Matters Under Article 227 No. 2163 of 2017
Decided On : 27-09-2019
Rama Goel Bansal, Adv., Shyam Shankar Mishra, Adv., Kripa Shankar Pandey, Adv., P.K. Jain, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, a tenant can be deemed to have sublet the premises in certain situations, and the burden of proof lies on the tenant to show that the person in occupation is an employee and not a sub-tenant.
Headnote:
Subletting - Eviction - Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, Section 20(2) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 20(2)(e) of the Act, 1972, which allows eviction of a tenant for subletting the premises. The court also referred to Section 20(4) of the Act, 1972, which provides protection to the tenant if arrears of rent and damages are deposited in court. The judgment also highlighted the deeming provisions under Section 12 and Section 25 of the Act, 1972, which deem the premises to be sublet in certain situations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant, was facing eviction on the grounds of arrears of rent and subletting the premises without permission. The trial court decreed the eviction, which was upheld in revision. The petitioner challenged the judgments and orders of the lower courts in a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to prove that the person in occupation of the premises was an employee and not a sub-tenant. The court held that there was a deemed vacancy of the premises under Section 12(1)(b) of the Act, 1972, and thus, the premises were deemed to have been sublet by the petitioner to the occupant. Consequently, the petitioner was liable to be evicted under Section 20(2)(e) of the Act, 1972.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner had sublet the premises to another person without the landlord's permission, and whether the petitioner could prove that the occupant was an employee and not a sub-tenant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the failure of the petitioner to prove that the occupant was an employee and not a sub-tenant, and the application of the deeming provisions under Section 12 and Section 25 of the Act, 1972.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the judgments and orders of the lower courts, and the petitioner was held liable to be evicted from the disputed premises.
JUDGMENT :
Salil Kumar Rai, J.
Heard Ms. Rama Goel Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri P.K. Jain, Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Shyam Shankar Mishra, Advocate, for respondent No. 1.
2. The respondent No. 1 is the landlord of a Shop No. 305(Old No. 174) situated in Minarwa Talkies, Minarwa Chauraha, Mohalla-Talaiya, District-Jhansi. The petitioner is the tenant of the said shop. The shop shall hereinafter be referred to as, 'disputed premises'. Respondent No. 1 instituted Small Causes Case (hereinafter referred to as, 'S.C.C.') No. 48 of 2011 under Section 20(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1972') for eviction of petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was in arrears of rent since 1.1.2004 despite a notice of demand having been served on him and also on the ground that the petitioner had sublet the disputed premises to respondent No. 2 without any permission from respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 was using it for his business of tyre repair. It was stated in the plaint instituting S.C.C. No. 48 of 2011 that a notice dated 27.7.2011 terminating the tenancy of the petitioner had also been served on him. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 filed their written statements denying the contents of the plaint instituting S.C.C. No. 48 of 2011. In their written statements, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. In their written statements, the defendants, i.e., the petitioner and respondent No. 2, stated that initially the father of the petitioner was inducted as tenant in the disputed premises at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per month by the original owner and landlord of the disputed premises. It was averred that the father of the petitioner carried on his transport business from the disputed premises and the respondent No. 2 helped the father of the petitioner in his aforesaid business and when the father of the petitioner suffered loss in his transport business he started the business of tyre repair and respondent No. 2 continued to help him in his aforesaid business. It was also stated in the written statements that subsequently the disputed premises was purchased by respondent No. 1 and the father of the petitioner continued as tenant in the disputed premises and after his death, the petitioner continued as tenant in the disputed premises on the same terms and respondent No. 2 continued to help the petitioner in his business. It was stated that the petitioner paid wages to respondent No. 2 according to the work done by respondent No. 2. In their written statements, the defendants, i.e., the petitioner and respondent No. 2, denied the contents of the notice dated 27.7.2011 and also claimed protection of Section 20(4) of the Act, 1972 on the ground that they had deposited in the court the entire arrears of rent and damages as stipulated in Section 20(4) of the Act, 1972.
3. The trial court, i.e., the Small Causes Court, Jhansi, vide its judgement and decree dated 9.12.2014 decreed S.C.C. No. 48 of 2011 and directed the eviction of the petitioner from the disputed premises. In its judgement and decree dated 9.12.2014, the trial court held that the petitioner was in arrears of rent, but was also entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act, 1972. However, in its judgement and decree dated 9.12.2014, the trial court held that the petitioner had sublet the disputed premises to respondent No. 2 without the permission of respondent No. 1, and therefore, the petitioner was liable to be evicted from the disputed premises under Section 20(2)(e) of the Act, 1972. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Small Causes Revision No. 14/2015, which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 7, District-Jhansi vide his judgement and order dated 10.2.2017.
4. During the proceedings in the trial court, the respondent No. 1 produced his
