U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – s.2(1)(a) – Eviction – Appellant initiated the petition u/s.2(1)(a) against the predecessor of the respondents seeking release of the suit property/premises – The prescribed authority dismissed the petition and held that appellant cannot claim ownership right over the coparcenary property and he was not the landlord of the respondents and also held that his bonafide requirement did not exist – The Appellate Authority on re-appreciating the entire aspect of the matter arrived at conclusion that the appellant had lawfully become the owner of the property and respondents were tenant under the appellant and held that case for release of property was made out – Thereafter, respondent filed writ petition before the High Court – High Court took the similar view as arrived at by the prescribed authority and reversed the judgment passed by the Appellate Court – On appeal, held: The proceedings under the Rent Act is of summary nature wherein the jural relationship of landlord and tenant is to be taken note to the extent it is required for considering such eviction petition and the rigour of examining the ownership ought not to be indulged in the manner as done in a title suit unless the respondent sets up title to the very rented property which is adverse to that of the landlord – In the instant case, the consideration made by the prescribed authority was in the nature of the title being examined in the suit for partition or for seeking declaration of title – The detailed examination with regard to the nature of the right to the property was made, which was wholly unnecessary in a summary proceeding when tenant had not set up title to the premises in question – Father of the appellant admittedly was the owner of the property and he had made a settlement in favour of his son-appellant, the title thus acquired and cannot called in question – Further, predecessor of the respondents earlier, had initiated a proceeding before the Rent Control and Eviction officer and sought alternate premises, that showed that respondents did not have any issue with regard to the ownership – Insofar as a bonafide requirement is concerned, there was no material available on record to indicate that the appellant had any other alternate premises, the bonafide need of the appellant as claimed, accepted – Therefore, the Judgment passed by the prescribed authority and the High Court set aside – Consequently, the Judgment passed by the Appellate Authority restored.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. Though such detailed examination with regard to the nature of the right to the property has been made in the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the same was wholly unnecessary in a summary proceeding of the present nature when the tenant had not set up title to the premises in question. Irrespective of the fact as to whether the property was the coparcenary property or had become the absolute property of father of the appellant, the fact remains that a family settlement dated 15.11.1999 was entered into, to which father of the appellant, who was the owner was himself a party and had given a portion of his property to his son-appellant. Pursuant to such oral family settlement dated 15.11.1999 a Memorandum dated 02.02.2000 was also drawn up. Subsequent thereto the appellant had also filed an Original Suit No.220/2001 seeking that the family settlement be declared as valid. The said suit was disposed of on 19.04.2001 based on the compromise. [Para 14] [85-G-H; 86-A]
2. Whether the share given by father of the appellant to his son who is appellant is justified or as to whether the nature of the document under which the settlement was recorded was as per requirement of law and valid are all issues which can only be raised by any other member of the family who would feel deprived and could have claimed right over the such property. But in a circumstance where father of appellant who admittedly was the owner of the property had made a settlement in favour of the appellant who is his son, the title thus acquired, in any event, cannot be called in question by the person who is in occupation of the premises as a tenant when father of appellant who admittedly was his landlord did not continue to claim to be the landlord. If that be the position as rightly noticed by the Appellate Authority, in view of the provision as contained in Section 8 and Section 109 of Transfer of Property Act, on transfer of the property by the owner the tenant would automatically become the tenant of the transferee. [Para 15] [86-B-E]
3. The aspect which is also necessary to be taken note is that the predecessor of the respondents had initiated a proceeding in Suit No.113/2011 before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer wherein he had sought for allotment of alternate premises by indicating that the case bearing No.6/2010 had been initiated by the appellant herein against him. This would indicate that at the first instance, the predecessor of the respondents did not have any issue with regard to the ownership and was making an attempt to secure an alternate premises but has only thereafter raised the contention despite the relationship being indisputable. Therefore, taking into consideration all these aspects this Court is of the opinion that the view expressed by the Appellate Court is appropriate in the present facts and circumstance. [Para 16] [86-G-H; 87-A-B]
4. From the evidence as tendered, the appellant had contended that he is doing wholesale business of cloth for which he does not have premises due to which he, his wife and two children are experiencing hardship. In a circumstance where there is no material available on record to indicate that the appellant has any other alternate premises, the bonafide need of the appellant as claimed will have to be accepted and even though the respondents would face some hardship, as compared to the same the hardship to be faced by the appellant would be greater if the premises is not released to the appellant. [Para 17] [87-C-D]
Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329 : [2010] 8 SCR 836 – referred to.
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.