Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – ss.20(2)(a), 20(4), 30 – Protection u/s.20, when not available – Suit filed by the landlord if, to be decreed on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and tenant be evicted:
Held: Yes – Under s.20(2)(a), in case the tenant is in arrears of rent of four months, the suit for eviction after determination of his tenancy may lie, but such rent may be deposited within one month from the date of service of notice of default upon him – In case, the due rent along with damages and occupation charges is not paid as required u/s.20(2)(a) r/w ss.20(4) and 30, no protection would be available as stipulated u/s.20 – Tenancy was for a period of five years whereafter, it was extendable by consent of landlord with rent enhancement – No agreed lease agreement was entered after 30.06.1990, but as per the UP Rent Act, the tenancy would become statutory and subject to payment of the enhanced rent, the suit can be maintained – But, in case of consecutive default of monthly payment of rent and continuous non-payment as specified under the UP Rent Act, it may be a ground to grant decree of eviction – Tenant was in default in regular payment of monthly rent, tax and interest due during pendency of the suit, revision before the High Court and also in appeal before this Court – On facts, the burden of payment or deposit of rent by tenant not discharged to shift onus on landlord – Deposit in one-go after the order of this Court would not absolve the tenant from consequence of non-payment or delayed payment of rent – Findings recorded by Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court are perverse – Orders passed by Trial Court and the High Court set aside – Suit filed by the landlord decreed on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent, tenant to be evicted from the suit subject property. [Paras 13, 15, 22, 25-27]
Rent eviction matters – Revisional jurisdiction of High Court – Trial Court dismissed the eviction suit filed by the landlord – Revision thereagainst, dismissed by High Court holding that re-appraisal of evidence is not permissible in revisional jurisdiction:
Held: Once a revision petition is entertained by the High Court, it acquires the jurisdiction to call for and examine the records of the authority subordinate to it – Any illegality, irregularity or impropriety coming to its notice is capable of being corrected by it by passing such appropriate order or direction as the law requires and justice demands – Therefore, the High Court was required to look into the material placed and justifiability of the findings relying those documents – In absence of its satisfaction, the High Court ought to have interfered and such revision cannot be thrown out on the ground of limited scope of jurisdiction. [Para 24]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. 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.