Rent control and eviction:
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972: ss. 20(2)(a), 20(4) proviso – Suit for eviction by plaintiff (respondent) against defendant (appellant) on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent – Eviction decree by the trial court – In revision, eviction decree confirmed denying benefit of s. 20(4) to tenant – Writ petition by defendant also dismissed – On appeal, held: The court has discretion to pass decree for eviction against tenant, in case the court finds that the tenant has ensured compliance of the requirements of s. 20(4) by depositing the rent, its arrears and damages – Proviso to s.20(4) states that s.20(4) will not apply, if it is proved that a tenant or any member of his family, has either built or otherwise acquired the house in a vacant state, or has got vacated after acquisition, any residential building in the same city, municipality – The language of proviso being plain and simple leaves no ambiguity therein – Thus, on facts, tenant not entitled to take the benefit of s.20(4) because his case falls under the proviso to sub-section(4) by virtue of the fact that his son, who is member of family being a male lineal descendants has built his residential house in the same city and he is in its possession – Pursuant to eviction decree, the tenant can shift in the said house – Thus, the reasoning and the conclusions by the courts below are concurred with.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Reading of Section 20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 would go to show that when a landlord files a suit against his tenant seeking his eviction from the tenanted premises on the ground of arrears of rent as specified under Section 20(2)(a) of the Act, the court has a discretion to pass a decree for eviction against the tenant or relieve him from the rigor of the eviction decree, in case the court finds that the tenant has ensured compliance of the requirements of Section 20(4) of the Act by depositing the rent, its arrears and damages together with interest as specified therein. [Paras 19, 20] [452-G-H]
1.2 The proviso provides that sub-section(4) of Section 20 of the Act will not apply, if it is proved that a tenant or any member of his family, has either built or otherwise acquired the house in a vacant state, or has got vacated after acquisition, any residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area. In order to attract the proviso, three facts need to be proved. First, the tenant or any member of his family, as specified under Section 3(g), has either built or otherwise acquired any residential building; Second, such residential building is in a vacant state; and third, such vacant residential building is situated in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area where the suit tenanted premises is situated. Once these three facts are proved, the proviso would apply against the tenant disentitling him to claim the benefit of sub-section (4) of Section 20 to avoid decree for his eviction passed against him under Section 20(2)(a) of the Act. [Paras 21-23] [453-B-E]
1.3 The main reason behind enacting such proviso is that the tenant, in such circumstances, would not suffer any hardship, if he is asked to vacate the tenanted premises pursuant to eviction decree passed against him on the ground of arrears of rent under Section 20(2)(a) of the Act because he or any member of his family has built house or acquired it and got its vacant possession situated in the same city. Such tenant can, therefore, shift in the house of member of the family. [Para 24] [453-F]
1.4 There is no merit in the submission that it is only when any member of tenant’s family is living with the tenant in the tenanted premises and if he owns any vacant residential building in the same city, the tenant can be deprived of the benefit of subsection(4) of Section 20 but not otherwise. The language of proviso being plain and simple leaving no ambiguity therein, the words of the proviso cannot be read the way counsel for the appellant wants the Court to read therein. If such was the intention of the legislature, then the proviso would have been worded accordingly. Such is, however, not the case here. [Paras 26-27] [453-H; 454A-B]
1.5 The reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below are concurred with and it is held that the tenant, having rightly suffered a decree for eviction on the ground contained under Section 20(2)(a), is not entitled to take the benefit of sub-section(4) of Section 20 because his case falls under the proviso to sub-section(4) by virtue of the fact that his son, who is member of family being a male lineal descendants as specified under Section 3(g)(ii) of the Act, has built his residential house in the same city and he is in its possession. The tenant can, therefore, shift in the said house once he is asked to vacate pursuant to eviction decree passed against him. The appellants are, however, granted three months’ time to vacate the suit house provided they deposit the entire arrears of rent till date. [Paras 28-29] [454-C-D; 454-E]
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.