Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 – The appellant acquired a property by a sale deed dated 13.03.1994 – The said property included two gaddis, two godowns and a tin shed (collectively referred as disputed property), which was earlier given by the vendor/predecessors-in-title of the appellant to another person ‘D’ by way of tenancy – An application was filed u/s.16 of the Act by the second respondent for allotment of the said disputed property, on the premise that the disputed property had fallen vacant – An inspection report was prepared – The report recorded that first respondent was carrying on his business in the said disputed property and he was inducted as tenant by ‘D’ in November 1975 – The Addl. City Magistrate held that the first respondent was in continuous possession as a tenant on the basis of an agreement dated 15.11.1975 and he had become a tenant of the disputed premises – Hence, the disputed property was not vacant – A writ petition filed against the said judgment before the High Court was rejected – Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that on 05.07.1976, the disputed premises were vacant and after purchasing property in the year 1994, she has not received any income from the said property – Held: The first respondent has relied on the agreement dated 15.11.1975 by which tenancy on him was conferred – There is a finding recorded by the Addl. City Magistrate that the predecessors-in-title of the appellant had never raised any objection right from the year 1975 regarding the possession of the first respondent – Thus, the first respondent was in possession as a tenant prior to 05.07.1976 – So, he shall be deemed to be tenant by virtue of s.14 of the Act – There is no fault in the order of the Addl. City Magistrate – Therefore, if appellant wants eviction of the first respondent, she will have to take recourse to s.20 or s.21 of the Act – However, the first respondent is directed to deposit all the arrears of rent in pending proceedings u/s.30 of the Act before the Court of Civil Judge – Thus, there is no error in the view taken by the Addl. City Magistrate and confirmation of the same by the High Court. Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The first respondent relied upon the agreement dated 15th November, 1975 purportedly executed by the said ‘D’ claiming to be the power of attorney holder and manager of the original owners. The first respondent is the second party to the said Agreement on whom tenancy in respect of the disputed premises was conferred. The finding of fact recorded by the Addl. City Magistrate is that the original owners never denied that the said ‘D’ was their attorney or manager and that the original owners neither served any notice nor filed a suit for eviction. In the counter, the first respondent has relied upon the said agreement. In the rejoinder, the appellant alleged that the said document was fabricated. However, the petitioner has not produced on record anything to show that from 1975 to 1994, the original owners raised any objection to the induction of the first respondent as a tenant of the disputed premises in the year 1975. Thus, the first respondent was inducted in possession as a tenant prior to 5th July, 1976. The finding recorded by the Addl. City Magistrate is that to the presence of the first respondent, the predecessors-in-title, of the appellant had never raised any objection right from the year 1975. Therefore, the Addl. City Magistrate concluded that in absence of the evidence of predecessors-in-title of the appellant, it is very difficult to accept that right from the year 1975, the first respondent continued to be in possession without the consent of the original owners. There is nothing wrong about this inference drawn by the Addl. Magistrate that the first respondent was inducted with the consent of the predecessors-in-title of the appellant. This Court finds no error in the said view taken by the Addl. City Magistrate and confirmed by the High Court. [Para 12][79-B-G]
2. As the first respondent was a tenant in possession on 5 th July, 1976 with the consent of the original owners, he shall be deemed to be a tenant by virtue of Section 14 of the said Act. [Para 13][79-G-H]
3. Therefore, there is no reason to find fault with the Order of the Addl. City Magistrate. By virtue of Section 14, the first respondent gets the protection as a tenant under the said Act. Therefore, if the appellant wants the first respondent to be evicted, she will have to take recourse to section 20 of the said Act. Depending upon the circumstances, she has also an option to take recourse to section 21 of the said Act. [Para 14][80-A-B]
4. The first respondent is directed to deposit all the arrears of rent and thereafter, continue to regularly deposit the rent in the proceedings pending u/s. 30 of the Act before the Civil Judge. He can also pay the amount to the petitioner. The petitioner can always apply for withdrawal of the rent amount in accordance with sub-section (3) of section 30 of the said Act. If eviction proceedings are filed by the petitioner, considering the case of the petitioner that she is deprived of the benefit of the disputed premises right from year 1994, the concerned authority or the Court, as the case may be, shall give priority to the disposal of the eviction proceedings. [Para 17][80-F-G]
Achal Misra v. Rama Shanker Singh & Ors. (2005) 5 SCC 531 : [2005] 3 SCR 439; Ram Murti Devi v.
Pushpa Devi & Ors. (2017) 15 SCC 230 : [2017] 7 SCR 872; Harish Tandon v. Addl. District Magistrate, Allahabad, U.P. & Ors. (1995) 1 SCC 537 : [1995] 1 SCR 56 – held inapplicable.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.