Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ashutosh Srivastava, J.
Amarjeet Singh – Petitioner
Versus
Shiv Kumari Yadav – Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3023 of 2024
Decided On : 05-03-2024
Tenancy - U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021 - Sections 4, 21(2) - The court interpreted the provisions of the U.P. Tenancy Act, emphasizing the necessity of written agreements and the conditions under which eviction applications can be maintained, ultimately affirming the Rent Authority's jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the orders of the Rent Authority and Rent Tribunal regarding the maintainability of eviction proceedings under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Tenancy Act, arguing that the tenancy was not validly terminated and that the Rent Authority lacked jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tenant's objections regarding the maintainability of the proceedings were without merit, as the Rent Authority had the jurisdiction to hear the eviction application under the Act, despite the tenant's claims about the lack of a written tenancy agreement.
Issues: Whether the information to the Rent Authority in the specified form is a sine qua non for maintaining an application under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Tenancy Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the information to the Rent Authority is important, it is not an absolute requirement for maintaining eviction proceedings if the tenancy is admitted.
Result: The petition was dismissed as devoid of merits.
JUDGMENT :
Ashutosh Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Ms. Rama Goel “Bansal” and Ms. Shalini Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 29.3.2023 passed by the Rent Authority/Additional District Magistrate, Agra as also the order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the Rent Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, Agra whereby and whereunder the preliminary objections of the tenant/petitioner about the maintainability of the proceedings under Section 21 (2) have been rejected and time for filing written statement has been granted by the Rent Authority.
3. The issue raised in this writ petition is purely legal and the Court proceeds to decide the petition on the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the materials available on record without calling upon the respondent.
4. This Court vide order dated 27.2.2024 after hearing Ms. Shalini Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner and recording her submissions had required her to bring on record the reply filed by the landlord/respondent to the objection taken by the tenant/petitioner to the maintainability of the application under Section 21 (2) of the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021.
5. Learned counsel for the tenant/petitioner has filed supplementary application bringing on record the objections of the landlord/respondent dated 10.2.2023.
6. From the perusal of the legal objections taken by the tenant/petitioner which have been brought on record as Annexure-7 to the petition, it is borne out that neither the applicant or the opposite party had been allotted the unique number and no digital platform was created by the State Government under the Act of 2021 and the application was thus premature, the tenancy had been terminated vide registered Notice dated 8.2.2022 and hence, only the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the case, the jurisdiction of the Rent Authority under the Act is confined to the tenancy agreement submitted to it. The tenant/petitioner was ready to execute the Tenancy Agreement, but the opposite party deliberately and mala fide failed to supply the proforma of the Tenancy Agreement and further that the Notice dated 8.2.2022 was invalid as single notice in respect of two independent tenancies had been given.
7. The reply to the legal objections taken by the tenant/petitioner brought on record alongwith the supplementary-affidavit submitted by the landlord/respondent reveals that request to execute the Tenancy Agreement and provide all information through the Notice dated 8.2.2022 was sought but the tenant/petitioner failed to comply and violated the provision of Section 4 (3) of the Act and an application for eviction of the tenant/petitioner under Section 21 (2) of the Act of 2021 was maintainable.
8. From the perusal of the legal objection taken by the tenant/petitioner and the reply of the landlord/respondent, the legal position as regards whether information to the Rent Authority in the form specified in the First Schedule by the landlord is a sine quo non for maintaining an application under Section 21 (2) of the Act of 2021, is not clear.
9. A perusal of the provisions contained in Section 4 of the Act, which relates to Tenancy Agreement reveals that sub-section (1) of Section 4 commences with a non obstinate clause and as such, has an overriding effect over the other provisions under the Act. It provides that no person after the commencement of the Act of 2021 shall let or take on rent any premises except by an agreement in writing which shall be informed to the Rent Authority jointly by the landlord and tenant in the form specified in the First Schedule provided the tenancy is not residential for a period of less than 12 months in which case no such information is required to be informed to the Rent Authority. Sub-section (2) relates to a situation when both the landlord and tenant jointly fail to inform the execution of the Tenancy Agreement in which case the landlord and tenant shall separately inform the R
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.
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 Rent Authority has jurisdiction to entertain eviction applications even without a tenancy agreement under the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that non-registration of a rent agreement does not make it void or inadmissible in evidence under the Punjab Rent Act, 1995.
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 requirement of a written tenancy agreement under the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 is mandatory for avoid automatic eviction rights for l....
Landlord only needs to demonstrate requirement for personal occupation under Section 21(2)(m) of the Act, 2021, without needing to prove bona fide necessity or comparative hardship.
Ownership does not automatically establish a landlord-tenant relationship without evidence of rent agreements or payments, as confirmed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011.
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
