Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
NEERAJ TIWARI, J.
Shree Chand Jain – Petitioner
Versus
Rent Tribunal 13th Adj Agra and Others – Respondents
Matters Under Article 227 No. 6277 of 2024
Decided On : 22-05-2024
RENT CONTROL - RENT APPEAL PROCEDURE - Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 - Sections 33(2), 35(1), 35(2) - The court emphasized the mandatory time limits for the Rent Tribunal to decide appeals within 60 days as per Section 33(2) and the requirement of a 50% pre-deposit of the payable amount under Section 35(1) of the Act. The court interpreted these provisions to ensure timely justice and prevent misuse of legal processes, leading to directives for compliance by the Rent Tribunal and Rent Authority.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition to expedite the decision on a rent control appeal and to ensure compliance with the mandatory deposit requirements under the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021. The petitioner argued that the appeal was filed without the necessary pre-deposit and that the original records were improperly summoned, hindering execution of the interim rent order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Rent Tribunal must adhere to the statutory time limits for deciding appeals and the requirement for pre-deposit of 50% of the payable amount. It ruled that the appeal could not be entertained without compliance with these provisions and directed the Rent Tribunal to ensure timely decisions and proper handling of records.
Issues: 1. Whether the Rent Tribunal is required to decide appeals within 60 days as mandated by the Act. 2. Whether the appeal can be entertained without the mandatory pre-deposit of 50% of the payable amount. 3. Whether the original records can be summoned without causing delays in execution proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of Sections 33(2) and 35(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 are mandatory and must be strictly followed to ensure timely justice and prevent misuse of the legal process. The court also referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. to support its decision on handling original records.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with directions for the Rent Tribunal and Rent Authority to comply with the statutory time limits and pre-deposit requirements, ensuring that appeals are decided expeditiously and that original records are handled appropriately.
JUDGMENT :
NEERAJ TIWARI, J.
1. Heard Sri Sudeep Harkauli, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri I.P. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Present petition has been filed with the following prayers:
(ii) To direct the Rent Tribunal to return the records of the case under Appeal No. 56 of 2023 and under all other similar appeals to the Rent Authority so that case can be adjudicated there, and to direct the Rent Tribunal not to unnecessary summons records of the cases pending before the Rent Authority or summon only copies of the record from Rent Authority if at all required giving specific reasons as to why the copy of the record is required/necessary for deciding the appeal.
(iii) To direct the Rent Tribunal to comply with the provisions of mandatory deposit of 50% of the amount as required under the Act.”
3. Sri Sudeep Harkauli, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after repealing of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 2021) has been enacted and also Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 2021) framed thereunder. He next submitted that petitioner has filed an application under Section 10 of Act, 2021, which was numbered as Case No. 5808 of 2022. In the said case, order dated 16.9.2022 has been passed fixing the interim rent at the rate of Rs. 750/-per square feet. Thereafter, respondent has filed an application to recall the order dated 16.9.2022. He has also approached this Court by filing Writ-A No. 12100 of 2023, which was disposed of vide order dated 26.7.2023 with direction to decide the recall application within time bound period. In pursuance of the said order, recall application was heard and rejected vide order dated 17.11.2023. Recall/review application has been filed against the fixation of interim rent and as such its rejection confirms the fixation of interim rent.
4. He next submitted that there is provision of appeal under Section 35 of Act, 2021 against the orders passed by the Rent Authority. Section 35 of Act, 2021 provides pre deposits of 50% of the payable amount and in the present case, 50% of the payable amount would be 50% of the interim rent fixed by the order dated 16.9.2022. Against the review/recall order, rent appeal no. 56 of 2023 has been filed without deposit of aforesaid amount, which is against the provisions of Act, 2021. The said appeal was entertained, original record of Appellate Authority has been summoned by the Rent Tribunal. He firmly submitted that no appeal has been filed against the order of fixation of interim rent dated 16.9.2022 rather than it has been filed against the recall/review order dated 17.11.2023. He lastly submitted that order of fixation of interim rent dated 16.9.2022 has never been challenged.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that after summoning the original record, petitioner is not in a position to initiate execution application to execute the order of interim rent dated 16.9.2022. He next submitted that as provided in Section 33 (2) & 35(2) of Act, 2021, direction may be issued to Rent Tribunal to decide the appeal at the earliest clarifying that pendency of such appeal may not be a ground for staying of any execution proceedings, if filed. He further submitted that direction may also be issued to rent tribunal not to summon the original record and in case original record is required, only photocopy/scanned copy duly certified by the Rent Authority may be sent. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation passed in Cr
In exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Even assuming that for purpose of execution an order under Section 12(3) of Act can be equated with and treated as same, as one under Section 11 of Act, the consequence enjoined by an order under Sec....
High Court could not have re-appreciated the evidence and the concurrent findings rendered by the courts below ought not to have been interfered with by the High Court while exercising revisional jur....
Tenants must deposit admitted rent during eviction proceedings under crisis; failure leads to automatic eviction unless sufficient cause is shown.
Timely application and deposit of rent, even if slightly delayed due to holidays, fulfill statutory requirements preventing eviction under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.
Point of Law : Only thing is that the opportunity to be afforded to the tenant to show sufficient cause with respect to the failure to pay or deposit rent, as directed in Section 12(1) and (2), withi....
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
