Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.
Alok Gupta - Petitioner
Versus
District Judge Rent Tribunal And Others - Respondents
Writ A. No. 2030 of 2024, Writ A. No. 2572 of 2024, Writ A. No. 2034 of 2024, Writ A. No. 2032 of 2024, Writ A. No. 2031 of 2024, Writ A. No. 2593 of 2024, Writ A. No. 2594 of 2024, Writ A. No. 2603 of 2024, Writ A. No. 2091 of 2024, Writ A. No. 2098 of 2024, Writ A. No. 2132 of 2024, Writ A. No. 2137 of 2024, Writ A. No. 2300 of 2024 Writ A. No. 2144 of 2024, Writ A. No. 2148 of 2024, Writ A. No. 2176 of 2024, Writ A. No. 1884 of 2024, Writ A. No. 1886 of 2024, Writ A. No. 1892 of 2024, Writ A. No. 1895 of 2024, Writ A. No. 1896 of 2024, Writ A. No. 1898 of 2024, Writ A. No. 1899 of 2024, Writ A. No. 1900 of 2024, Writ A. No. 1901 of 2024, Writ A. No. 1902 of 2024, Writ A. No. 3300 of 2024.
Decided On : 12-03-2024
Urban Premises Tenancy Act - Tenancy Dispute - U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021 - Section 21(2), Section 4(3)
Fact of the Case:
The case involves tenants of different shop numbers in two buildings in Varanasi, under the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021. The landlord filed an application seeking ejectment of the tenants for rebuilding the premises. The tenants contested the application, citing non-revision of rent and non-compliance with the new Act's provisions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tenants failed to comply with the pre-deposit requirement and the provisions related to negotiated settlement. It also held that the landlord's property was not exempt from the Act and that the application for ejectment was maintainable. The court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the orders of the Rent Authority and Rent Tribunal.
Issues: Non-compliance with pre-deposit requirement, applicability of the Act to landlord's property, violation of provisions related to negotiated settlement and tenancy agreement
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of compliance with statutory requirements, including pre-deposit and negotiated settlement. It interpreted the Act's provisions regarding exemption of premises owned by religious or charitable institutions and the necessity of a written tenancy agreement.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the orders of the Rent Authority and Rent Tribunal, and directed the parties to bear their own costs.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
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 (!) (!) .
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 (!) (!) .
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 (!) (!) .
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 (!) .
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 (!) (!) .
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 (!) (!) .
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 (!) .
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.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Sharad Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Deepak Kumar as well as Shri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsels for the landlord/respondent no.3.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to delete the respondent nos. 1 and 2 from the array of parties.
3. The petitioners of first set of writ petitions are tenants of different shop numbers situated in building No. CK62/19, 20, 21 and 22 Kashipura (West), Ward Chowk, Tehsil and District Varanasi, whereas, the petitioners of second set of the writ petitions are tenants of different shop numbers situated in building B-30/5A, Vikram Building, situate at Lanka-BHU, Main Road, Varanasi.
4. The writ petition arise out of the proceedings undertaken under the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021(UP Act No. 16 of 2021).
5. The controversy involved in both sets of the writ petitions are similar in nature and the impugned orders have been assailed on identical grounds. Hence, with the consent of the parties all the writ petitions are being finally decided at the admission stage itself.
6. The writ petition, being Writ A No. 2030 of 2024, is being treated as the leading writ petition and the facts pertaining to the same are being considered for deciding the controversy involved.
7. The writ petition, being Writ A No. 2030 of 2024, at the instance of the Tenant/ Petitioner has been filed assailing the order dated 16.01.2024 passed by the Rent Tribunal/District Judge, Varanasi, in Rent Appeal No. 145 of 2023, whereby and whereunder the Rent Appeal has been dismissed and order of the Rent Authority/Additional District Magistrate (City), District-Varanasi, dated 30.06.2023 allowing the Release Application registered as Case No. 290 of 2023 has been upheld and the petitioner has been directed to vacate the shop No. 29 under his tenancy.
8. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a tenant of shop No. 29 situate in premises No. CK62/19, 20, 21 and 22 Kashipura (West), Ward Chowk, Tehsil and District Varanasi at a monthly rent of Rs. 230/- inclusive of Sewer and water charges. The respondent no. 3 is his landlord. The petitioner has paid the entire rent of the shop till July, 2013 under receipt, however the landlord/ respondent refused to accept the Rent from August 2013 and since then the rent is being deposited under Section 30 (1) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 in Misc. Case No. 28 of 2014. the Landlord/ Respondent no. 3 tried to dispossess the Tenant/Petitioner by force and petitioner was compelled to instituted a suit for permanent injunction being Original Suit No. 597 of 2014 in which temporary injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner that he shall not be evicted otherwise than in accordance with law. The respondent no. 3 thereafter filed SCC Suit No. 28 of 2014 before the Judge, Small Cause Court for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. The petitioner appeared in the suit and filed his written statement. However meanwhile the UP Act No. 16 of 2021 was enacted and the respondent no. 3 withdrew the SCC suit No. 28 of 2014.
9. After withdrawal of the SCC Suit No. 28 of 2014, the respondent no. 3 filed an application under Section 21 (1) of the UP Act No. 16 of 2021 which proceedings were registered as Application No. 290 of 2023 seeking ejectment of the petitioner from the shop no. 29 alleging that the petitioner is tenant of the shop no. 29 of premises No. CK62/19, 20, 21 and 22 and despite notice the Tenant/Petitioner has failed to vacate the premises which was required for rebuilding of the entire premises under clause (f) of Section 21 (2) of the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021. The tenant/ petitioner is in arrears of rent of Rs. 33,753/-but rent from 01.01.2021 Rs. 9120/-is claimed. It was also stated that monthly rent of Rs. 230/-per month was last revised in February 2010 which reached Rs. 518/-per month under U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021. Damages for use and occupation pendentilite
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.
The definition of 'Landlord' under the Uttar Pradesh Act No. 16 of 2021 includes trustees, and procedural objections must be raised in the written statement rather than through preliminary applicatio....
The Rent Authority has jurisdiction to entertain eviction applications even without a tenancy agreement under the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021.
The rent authority can adjudicate landlord applications even without a written tenancy agreement, emphasizing legislative intent to protect landlord rights and limiting jurisdictional constraints.
The court clarified that the absence of a written tenancy agreement does not preclude the Rent Authority from maintaining eviction proceedings if the tenancy is acknowledged.
In the absence of a written agreement between the landlord and tenant, the suit is maintainable in Civil Court, as per Section 4(6) of the Uttarakhand Tenancy Act, 2021.
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....
The court held that the Rent Control and Eviction Officer lacked jurisdiction to declare the property vacant as no landlord-tenant relationship existed between the parties.
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
