Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANISH KUMAR, J.
Prema Devi – Petitioner
Versus
Shri Kishna Agrawal – Respondent
Writ (A) No. 1000034 of 2001
Decided On : 03-07-2024
RENT CONTROL - Ejectment and Tenant Rights - Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, Section 20; Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, Section 25 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 20 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Building Act, particularly the requirements for a tenant to deposit arrears of rent before the first date of hearing to avoid eviction. The interpretation of 'first hearing' was clarified, emphasizing that it is the date when the court applies its mind to the case, not merely when a written statement is filed. The court also examined the implications of the tenant owning a residential property within the same municipality, concluding that the tenant's rights under the Act were not forfeited as the properties in question were not exclusively commercial. The court's decision was influenced by precedents that established the necessity of evidence to support claims regarding the nature of the properties owned by the tenant.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to set aside a revisional order and a judgment that dismissed his suit for ejectment of the respondent, a tenant who had defaulted on rent payments. The petitioner claimed the tenant failed to pay arrears and did not vacate the premises after receiving a termination notice. The tenant argued that he had deposited the arrears before the first date of hearing and that the properties he owned were not used for commercial purposes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tenant had indeed deposited the arrears before the first date of hearing, thus complying with Section 20(4) of the Act. It also determined that the properties owned by the tenant were residential and not used for commercial activities, which meant the tenant was entitled to the protections under the Act.
Issues: 'Whether the amount deposited by the tenant was prior to the first date of hearing.', 'What constitutes the first date of hearing.', 'Does the ownership of a residential building by the tenant affect their rights under Section 20(4) of the Act.'
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the first date of hearing is when the court applies its mind to the case, not merely when a written statement is filed. It also clarified that the tenant's ownership of a residential property does not automatically disqualify them from protections under Section 20(4) unless the property is used for commercial purposes.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision that the tenant was entitled to the benefits under Section 20(4) of the Act due to timely payment of arrears and the nature of the properties owned.
JUDGMENT :
MANISH KUMAR, J.
1. The present writ petition has been preferred for setting aside the revisional order dated 12.12.2000 passed by the XIth Additional District, Judge, Lucknow in SCC Revision No. 107 of 1998 (Smt. Prema Devi Vs. Sri Shri Krishna Agarwal) and judgment and order dated 17.3.1998 passed by the Ist Additional Judge Small Causes Courts, Lucknow in S.C.C. Suit No. 71 /83 (Smt. Prema Devi Vs. Sri Krishna) and decreeing the said suit for all the reliefs prayed for i.e. ejectment, arrears or rent, water tax, drainage tax, damages and costs.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent was a tenant of the shop situated at 12 Gautam Budh Marg Lucknow belonging to the petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-The respondent had defaulted in payment of arrears of rent, water tax and the drainage charges. The petitioner had served a notice dated 24.9.1983 terminating the tenancy and directing the respondent to pay the arrears within a particular period and failing which to vacate the shop immediately.
3. It is further submitted that when the respondent had neither paid the arrears nor vacated the shop, the petitioner preferred a suit under Section 20 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “ the Act, 1972”) before Judge Small Causes. The suit preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 17.3.1998 against which the revision was preferred under Section 25 of The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, which was also dismissed by the impugned order dated 12.12.2000.
4. It is further submitted that the learned trial court had failed to appreciate that the respondent i.e. the tenant had not deposited the arrears of rent and other dues on the first date of hearing of the suit as required under Section 20 (4) of the Act, 1972. The court below had also failed to appreciate that the respondent had a residential house in the city/within the same municipality hence as per the proviso to Sub-section 4 of the Section 20 of the Act, 1972, the respondent had to vacate the premises but the same was not considered by the learned trial court. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Samar Pal Singh Vs. Chitranjan Singh, 2015 (3) ARC 463 and judgment of the this Court in the case of Heera Lal Vs. IInd ADJ and Another, 2010 2 ARC 31.
5. It is further submitted that learned court below had also erred in giving a finding that the notice served by the petitioner is in contravention of the lease deed and was not a valid notice.
6. It is further submitted that the revisional court had not considered the illegalities/irregularities committed by the learned trial court while deciding the suit and dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner mainly on the ground that the notice was not in consonance with the lease deed, as the petitioner had first terminated the tenancy and also demanded the arrears of rent and other dues as required under Section 20 (4) of the Act, 1972.
7. On the other hand, Sri Mohammad Arif Khan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Chandra Shekar Pandey has submitted that the arrears of rent and other dues as demanded by the petitioner were deposited prior to the first date of hearing after receiving summons from the court. A sum of Rs. 5,456/-was deposited on 15.2.1984 and Rs.560/-was deposited on 22.8.1984 i.e. total demand raised by the petitioner in the suit prior to framing of the issues and it is further submitted that first date of hearing is interpreted by this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that first date of hearing is when the court has applied his mind for adjudication of the case and in support of his submission, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Siraj Ahmad Siddiqui Vs. Shri Prem Nath Kapoor, AIR 1993 SC 2525 and the in case of
The interpretation of 'first hearing' under Section 20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Building Act is critical in determining tenant rights, emphasizing the need for evidence regarding the nature of p....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the trial court to consider all evidence and pleadings related to the nature of the accommodation and the benefit of Section 20....
Point of law: When the aid of Revisional Court is invoked on the revisional side, it can interfere within the permissible parameters provided in the statute. It goes without saying that if a revision....
The interpretation of statutory language can be flexible to achieve legislative intent, as seen in the reading of 'and' as 'or' in Section 2(1)(f) of the Uttar Pradesh Act No. 13 of 1972.
The judgment emphasized the mandatory nature of the provisions of the Rent Control Act and the requirement for the tenant to offer rent to the landlord before depositing it in Court.
The court emphasized strict adherence to statutory provisions in eviction cases, particularly regarding rent payment and tenant obligations under the Bombay Rent Act.
The High Court's revisional jurisdiction is limited to ensuring lower courts adhered to legal standards, without reassessing evidence as in an appellate court.
Section 5 (1) (e) of the Act of 1972 stipulates that a decree for eviction can be passed where the tenant had not paid the rent lawfully due from him in respect to the houses within a fortnight of it....
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
