Advocates Appeared:
For the Parties : Sharad Malviya, Deepak Kumar, Ashish Kumar Srivastava.

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The case involves tenants of commercial premises in Varanasi under the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021. The landlord sought ejectment for rebuilding, and the tenants contested on grounds including non-revision of rent and non-compliance with the new Act's provisions (!) (!) .

2. The court emphasized the importance of compliance with statutory requirements such as pre-deposit and negotiated settlement provisions. It upheld that failure to comply with these requirements renders the proceedings maintainable and valid (!) (!) .

3. The applicability of the Act to the landlord’s property was examined, with the court concluding that properties owned by religious or charitable institutions are exempt only if specifically notified by the State Government. Since no such notification was on record, the property was not exempt, and the Act applied (!) (!) .

4. The court confirmed that the initiation of proceedings under the new Act was within the landlord’s rights, even if there was an earlier SCC suit. The withdrawal of the SCC suit did not bar the new proceedings (!) .

5. The provisions related to negotiated settlement under Section 31 of the Act were discussed. The court noted that such settlement is voluntary, and failure to attempt settlement does not invalidate the proceedings, especially in the absence of evidence showing such attempts were made (!) (!) .

6. The requirement under Section 4(3) of the Act for the landlord to upload tenant details and inform the tenant to execute a written tenancy agreement was analyzed. The court observed that non-compliance with this provision does not necessarily affect the validity of proceedings under Section 21(2) if the tenancy is admitted or not disputed (!) (!) .

7. The court found no error or illegality in the orders of the Rent Authority and the Rent Tribunal, dismissing the writ petitions. It held that the statutory provisions and procedural requirements were duly considered and adhered to, and that the proceedings were lawful (!) .

8. Finally, the court dismissed the petitions, stating that the parties would bear their own costs, and reaffirmed the importance of compliance with statutory procedures in tenancy disputes under the relevant Act (!) (!) .

These points collectively reflect the court’s reasoning and final decision regarding the tenancy dispute, statutory compliance, and applicability of the law.