2024 Supreme(All) 1064
ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA
Nirmal Agarwal – Appellant
Versus
Pradeep Kumar Gupta – Respondent
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Rishabh Agarwal, Tarun Agrawal.
For the Respondent: Rama Goel Bansal.
Judgement Key Points
Case Summary
- The petitions challenge the Rent Authority's order dated 1.3.2023 entertaining an application under Section 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (UP Act No. 16 of 2021) without first deciding a preliminary objection to its maintainability (!) (!) .
- Petitioner is tenant of a shop owned by Seth Girwar Lal Pyare Lal Shiksha Trust, paying rent to the Trust (!) .
- Application under Section 10 filed by respondent as Secretary of the Trust; tenant objected via application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 34(1)(h) of the Act, claiming Trust not impleaded and Secretary lacks authority (!) .
- Rent Authority allowed objections to be raised in written statement rather than deciding preliminary application (!) (!) .
Key Issues
- Whether Section 10 application maintainable when filed by Trust's Secretary (!) (!) .
- Whether tenant's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 34(1)(h) maintainable before Rent Authority (!) .
- Whether Rent Authority's order legally erroneous in deferring maintainability decision to final hearing (!) .
Court's Findings on Maintainability of Section 10 Application
- "Landlord" under Section 2(b) includes person entitled to receive rent on own account or trustee/guardian/receiver receiving rent on behalf of another (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
- Secretary qualifies as acting for Trust (landlord), supported by rent receipts and Form under Section 4(1); defect in cause title curable via amendment (!) .
- Application filed by Trust through Secretary, not Secretary personally; maintainable (!) .
Court's Findings on Procedure (Order 7 Rule 11 CPC)
- Section 33(1) excludes CPC application to Rent Authority/Tribunal; they regulate own procedure guided by natural justice: application with affidavit/documents, notice, reply/rejoinder, hearing/inquiry (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
- Strict timelines (e.g., 60 days disposal) to avoid delays (!) .
- Section 34(1) limits CPC powers; Order 7 Rule 11 not included, would contradict Act's scheme (!) (!) (!) (!) .
- Objections raisable in reply/written statement under Section 33(1)(c) (!) (!) .
Final Outcome
- Petitions dismissed; no patent illegality in Rent Authority's order (!) .
- Rent Authority directed to decide Section 10 application within 60 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 unde
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
