Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Alok Mathur, J.
Mahesh Chandra Agarwal – Petitioner
Versus
Rent Tribunal, Addl. District And Session Judge, Court No. 7, Lko. And Others – Respondents
WRIT - A No. - 7791 of 2023
Decided On : 08-01-2024
Eviction - Urban Premises Tenancy - Act of 2021, Section 35 - 21(1), 21(2)(b), 21(2)(m) - 4(3) - 13 - The judgment discusses the application of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, particularly focusing on the grounds for eviction under Section 21(2)(b) and 21(2)(m) and the obligations of landlords and tenants under Section 4(3). The court emphasizes the necessity of prior notice for eviction based on non-payment of rent and the landlord's personal need, and highlights the absence of the requirement for bonafide requirement of the landlord under the Act of 2021.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant, refused to sign a new tenancy agreement under the Act of 2021 and did not pay the enhanced rent. The landlord filed for eviction, claiming personal need for the premises.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the landlord's application for eviction was allowed solely on the ground of personal need as per Section 21(2)(m) of the Act of 2021, and there was no requirement for the petitioner to pay the outstanding rent. The absence of bonafide requirement as a ground for eviction under the Act of 2021 was emphasized.
Issues: The issues revolved around the refusal to sign a new tenancy agreement, non-payment of enhanced rent, and the landlord's claim of personal need for the premises.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the landlord's demonstration of personal need for the premises under Section 21(2)(m) was sufficient for eviction, and the absence of bonafide requirement as a ground for eviction under the Act of 2021 was a key factor in the decision.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the eviction order based on the landlord's personal need for the premises under Section 21(2)(m) of the Act of 2021.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 29/08/2023 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge under Section 35 of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2021) thereby rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner and upholding the order of eviction passed by the prescribed authority dated 14/12/2022, has preferred the present writ petition.
2. Ms Aparajita Bansal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that opposite party No. 3 is the owner of house situated at 253/96, Nadan Mahal Road, Lucknow which consists of 6 shops, one basement and one go-down. Out of the 6 shops, opposite party No. 3 had let out shop no.1 to the petitioner in 1989 and an agreement was also entered into on 3.4.1989 creating a tenancy in his favour for 11 months at the monthly rent of Rs. 500/-. 500/-.
3. An application under section 21(1) of the Act of 2021 was filed by the opposite party No. 3 who is the owner of the property in question which has been tenanted to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 4000/-. The said property is being utilised by the petitioner for running a shop. It was further stated that after coming into force of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, a new tenancy agreement was submitted by opposite party no.3 to the petitioner who refused to sign the same, pursuant to which a notice was given on 23.11.2021 to vacate the said premises. The legal notice was also not accepted by the petitioner, and hence an application for eviction was filed stating that the premises were required for his establishment of a business for his son. It was further stated that the petitioner has not paid the enhanced rent since 01.03.2021.
4. The rent authority had issued notices to the petitioner who had put in appearance and opposed the application for eviction.
5. The application for eviction was allowed by the Rent authority by means of the impugned order dated 14.12.2022 after recording the finding that the petitioner did not execute the rent agreement as per the provisions contained in the Act of 2021 nor did he pay the enhanced rent since 01.03.2021 and consequently there was violation of Section 9(3) of the Act of 2021. It was further held that the petitioner has repeatedly refused to accept the new agreement proposed by the landlord, and also that the landlord wanted the premises for establishing the business / office and on account of the aforesaid facts allowed the application, and ordered the petitioner to vacate the said premises in 30 days.
6. Appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Rent Tribunal against the order passed by the rent authority dated 14.12.2022. In the said appeal it was submitted that the landlord had not given any notice as prescribed under the Act of 2021 nor was any notice received by the petitioner and consequently he is not entitled to enhancement of rent as prayed for. It was further stated that agreed rent was only Rs.500/- as per the agreement dated 3.4.1989 and the petitioner has already deposited the said rent.
7. Objections were filed by the landlord to the said appeal wherein it was stated that the petitioner has not deposited Rs.24000/-which is fifty percent of the outstanding rent as per the provisions of Section 35 and consequently the said appeal was not maintainable nor even entertainable in the said form. It was further stated that the rent authority had duly taken into consideration all the facts with regard to service of notice upon the petitioner and on his being satisfied that despite service of notice the enhanced rent has not been paid and also that the petitioner has deliberately avoided entering into new agreement as per the provisions contained under Section 4 of the Act of 2021 which in itself was a ground for eviction and consequently submits that there was no illegality or infirmity in the order of eviction passed by the rent authority.
8.
The Act of 2021 does not require bonafide requirement of the landlord as a ground for eviction, and the landlord only needs to demonstrate personal need for the premises under Section 21(2)(m) for ev....
Landlord only needs to demonstrate requirement for personal occupation under Section 21(2)(m) of the Act, 2021, without needing to prove bona fide necessity or comparative hardship.
The landlord's right to evict tenants for personal use and reconstruction under Section 21(2) of the Act is upheld, with procedural objections deemed waived due to lack of timely challenge.
Compliance with statutory requirements, including pre-deposit and negotiated settlement, is crucial in tenancy disputes under the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021.
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
