Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.
Nirmal Agarwal - Petitioner
Versus
Pradeep Kumar Gupta - Respondent
Matters Under Article 227 Nos. 3112, 5221, 5222, 5223, 5224, 5225, 5227, 5228, 5230, 5233, 5236, 5237, 5238, 5239, 5240, 5241, 5242, 5245, 5246, 5247, 5248, 5249, 5250 of 2023
Decided On : 15-07-2024
RENT CONTROL - TENANCY DISPUTE - Uttar Pradesh Act No. 16 of 2021, Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - The court analyzed the maintainability of an application under Section 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Act No. 16 of 2021, emphasizing that the definition of 'Landlord' includes a trustee. The court interpreted the procedural provisions of the Act, particularly Section 33, which excludes the application of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and allows the Rent Authority to regulate its own procedures. The court concluded that the application was maintainable and that the objections raised by the petitioner could be addressed in the written statement rather than through a preliminary application.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant, challenged the order of the Addl. District Magistrate (EC)/Rent Authority, Agra, which entertained an application for rent determination under Section 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Act No. 16 of 2021 filed by the respondent, claiming to be the Secretary of the landlord trust. The petitioner contended that the application was not maintainable as the trust was not a party to the proceedings and that the respondent, as Secretary, lacked authority to file the application.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application under Section 10 was maintainable as it was filed by the Trust through its Secretary, despite the petitioner's objections. The court emphasized that the definition of 'Landlord' under the Act includes trustees and that the procedural provisions of the Act allow for objections to be raised in the written statement rather than through a preliminary application.
Issues: 'Whether the application under Section 10 of the UP Act No. 16 of 2021 was maintainable when filed by the Secretary of the Trust.', 'Whether the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was maintainable in light of the provisions of the UP Act No. 16 of 2021.', 'Whether the order of the Rent Authority was legally sound in not addressing the maintainability objection upfront.'
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the application under Section 10 was maintainable as it was filed by the Trust through its Secretary, and that the objections regarding maintainability could be raised in the written statement. The court also ruled that the provisions of the UP Act No. 16 of 2021 specifically exclude the application of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, thus affirming the Rent Authority's discretion in procedural matters.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, affirming the Rent Authority's order and directing it to expedite the determination of the rent application under Section 10 of the Act within sixty days.
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava, J.
1. All the above referred petitions involve identical questions of law and facts. The petition, being Matters under Article 227 No. -3112 of 2023 is being treated as the leading petition and the facts pertaining to the same are being considered for deciding the controversy involved.
2. Heard Shri Rishabh Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Rama Goel Bansal, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the sole respondent.
3. The petition, being No. 3112 of 2023, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed questioning the order dated 1.3.2023 passed by the Addl. District Magistrate (EC)/Rent Authority, Agra in Case No. 1116 of 2022 (Pradeep Kumar Gupta Versus Nirmal Kumar Agarwal). A suitable direction to the Addl. District Magistrate (EC)/Rent Authority, Agra to adjudicate upon the issue of maintainability of the application under Section 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Act No. 16 of 2021 at the instance of the sole respondent has been sought.
4. By the order impugned, the Addl. District Magistrate (EC)/Rent Authority, Agra has entertained the application of the sole respondent for determination of rent under Section 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Act No. 16 of 2021 without considering the objection of the tenant petitioner to the maintainability of the application itself granting liberty to take all objections at the time of filing reply to the application under Section 10 of the Act.
5. The undisputed facts necessary for adjudicating the controversy involved in the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are that the petitioner herein is tenant of a shop on the ground floor of property No. 31/58-59, Kokamal Market, Rawatpara, Agra let out to him by Seth Girwar Lal Pyare Lal Shiksha Trust. The petitioner has been regularly tendering the rent of the tenanted premises to the aforesaid Trust and receipts have been issued by the Trust.
6. It has been submitted that an application under Section 10 of the Act for determination of the rent of the premises has been filed by the sole respondent Shri Padeep Kumar Gupta in the capacity of Secretary of Girwar Lal Pyare Lal Shiksha Trust. The said application under Section 10 has been objected to by the petitioner by filing an application dated 20.1.2023 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 34 (1) (h) of the Uttar Pradesh Act No. 16 of 2021. In the said application besides an objection as to the deficiency in the payment of the Court Fee, the petitioner has raised specific objection to the maintainability of the application at the behest of the respondent on the ground that the Trust has not been impleaded as a party to the application under Section 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Act No. 16 of 2021.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Addl. District Magistrate (EC)/Rent Authority, Agra has manifestly erred in not considering the objections of the petitioner to the maintainability of the application and instead of deciding the same upfront has directed the petitioner to instead file his written statement and take all objections which shall be considered at the time of final arguments.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that an application under Section 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Act No. 16 of 2021 can be filed only by the landlord. As per Section 2(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Act No. 16 of 2021 Landlord' means a person who receives or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises and includes a Trustee. The respondent admittedly is only a Secretary of the Trust. The Secretary of the Trust is not statutorily recognized as Landlord and even though he may be entitled to collect rent, at best, he would qualify as a property Manager under Section 2 (d) and a property manager has not been conferred with any rights to institute any application on behalf of the Landlord for determination of rent or for eviction.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to draw a
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.
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 rent authority can adjudicate landlord applications even without a written tenancy agreement, emphasizing legislative intent to protect landlord rights and limiting jurisdictional constraints.
Section 25 empowers the Rent Controller to summon and enforce the attendance of witnesses and to compel the production of evidence as the Court is empowered under CPC.
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.
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
