SMT. SYED SUGARA ZAIDI versus LAEEQ AHMAD (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.
[2017] 14 S.C.R. 437, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Case Allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
[2017] 14 S.C.R. 437 
SMT. SYED SUGARA ZAIDI 
v. 
LAEEQ AHMAD (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 20915 of2017) 
A 
DECEMBER06,2017 
B 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHl, JJ.} 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent 
and Eviction) Act. 1972 - Non-renewal of rent agreement - Effect-
C 
Appellant-landlord filed a suit for eviction of respondents-tenants 
after expiration of the original term of lease - Appellant pleaded 
that respondent defaulted regularly in payment of rent and house 
tax and after expiration of lease respondent failed to get any fresh 
deed executed, therefore their continuance in possession had D 
become illegal after service of legal notice for eviction - Held: 
After. lapse of lease period, if lessee continues in possession of the 
demised premises in absence of an assent by lessor, then he is a 
tenant by sufferance and exposes himself to be sued for ejectment 
at any time without any prior notice or demand ofpossession - The 
term in the lease agreement for renewal of lease does not ipso facto 
E 
extend the tenure or term of lease - Jn absence of renewal of rent 
agreement. the possession of respondents-tenants in the demised 
premises has become unlawful and thus, he is liable to be evicted. 
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent 
and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Transfer of tenancy in violation of terms 
F 
of rent agreement - Appellant-landlord filed a suit for eviction of
respondents-tenants after expiration of the original term of lease -
Appellant pleaded that respondent constructed shops in the suit 
premises and let out the same to the third party in violation of terms 
of rent agreement - Held: Jn the rent agreement. the parties have 
not agreed to create or transfer interest in the tenancy in favou~ of G 
third party - Though. sub-letting of the premises for commercial.· 
purpose was agreed to by the original parties, transfer of interest 
in tenancy leading to creation of third party interest in the suit 
property could not have been done in the absence of a specific 
437 
H
438 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 14 S.C.R. 
A term in the rent agreement -Thus, the respondents-tenants /i'able to 
be evicted on the ground of violation of terms of rent agreement by 
transfer of interest in tenancy to third person, respondent no.3. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: Whether after expiry of the lease period and the 
determination of the tenancy whether the respondents-tenants 
can continue in possession of the suit property, when the lease 
was not renewed? [Para 8) 
1.1 The Appellant-landlord issued a notice to the 
respondents-tenants seeking vacant possession of the demised 
C premises on account of determination of lease due to efflux of 
time. After lapse of lease period, if a lessee continues in 
possession of the demised premises in absence of an assent by 
lessor, then he is a tenant by sufferance and exposes himself to 
be sued for ejectment at any time without any prior notice or 
D demand of possession. [Para 12)(443-E-F] 
1.2 The term in the lease agreement for renewal of lease 
deed does not ipso facto extend the tenure or term of the lease. 
So far as the clause for renewal in the lease deed is concerned, it 
was held in the ease ofDelhi Development Authority v. Durga Chand 
E Kaushish that such covenant only entitled a lessee to obtain a 
fresh lease in accordance with and in due satisfaction of the law 
governing the making of leases. In the absence of renewal of 
rent agreement, the possession of the respondents-tenants in 
the
demised premises has become unlawful and they are liable to 
be evicted. [Para 13)(443-F-G] 
F 
2. Another ground for eviction is construction of shops in 
the suit premises by the tenants and sub-letting the same in 
violation of terms of rent agreement. Though, there is a clause 
' 
in the rent agreement enabling the tenants to put up construction, 
there is no clause in the lease agreement permitting the tenants 
G to transfer his interest of tenancy to third party. It is the case of 
H 
. the appellant that in violation of the rent agreement, one of the 
original tenants, transferred his interest of tenancy in favour of 
third respondent. The appellant-landlord specifically denied that 
such transfer of interest in the tenancy was with the consent of 
the original landlord. On the other hand, the respondents-tenants
SMT. SYED SUGARA ZAIDI v. LAEEQ AHMAD (DEAD) 
439 
THROUGH LRS. 
in support of their claim submitted that such transfer of interest A 
in tenancy had taken place with the consent and knowledge of 
the original landlord, relied upon the receipts said to have been 
signed by the original landlord issued to one of the tenants. In 
view of specific denial by the appellant-landlord that they have 
permitted such transfer of interest, the receipts ought to have. B 
been proved by adducing evidence. The respondents-tenants, 
though relied upon the said documents, had not taken steps to 
prove those documents. [Para 14][444-A-D] 
c 
3. The courts below recorded findings that the rent 
agreement nowhere prohibited any of the tenants from 
transferring their interest in tenancy and therefore, there was no 
violation of any of the terms of the rent agreement. 
Had the 
parties agreed to create or transfer of interest in the tenancy in 
favour of third party, they would have added a specific term in 
that regard in the rent agreement. Though, sub-letting of the 
premises for commercial purpose was agreed to by the original D 
parties, transfer of interest in tenancy leading to creation of third 
party interest in the suit property could not ha~e been done in 
the absence of a specific term in the rent agreement. Thus, the 
respondents-tenants are liable to be evicted on the ground of 
violation of terms of rent agreement by transfer of interest in 
tenancy to respondent No. 3. [Para
15)(444-E-G] 
4. So far as the default in payment of rent and the deposit 
arrears of rent by the defendants and whether the respondents 
are entitled to the benefits of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act 13 of 
1972, the courts below recorded concurrent findings that Section 
20(4} of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972 has been complied with. 
Accordi.ng to the appellant-landlord, the respondents have failed 
E 
F 
to regularly deposit the rent in the trial court and there was no 
compliance of Section 20(4) of-the U.P. Act 13 of 1972. Since, the 
respondents-tenants are liable to be evicted on the ground pl 
non-renewal of rent agreement and determination of tenancy and 
G 
transfer of tenancy right in violation of terms of rirnt agreement, 
there is no need to examine the ground of default in payment of 
rent and compliance of Section 20(4) of the U.P; Act 13 of 1972. 
[Para 16][444-G-H; 445-A-B] 
H 
". 
(. 
:
440 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
Delhi Development Authority v. Durga Chand Kaushish 
(1973) 2 SCC 825 : (1974) 1 SCR 535 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference 
(1974) 1 SCR 535 
relied on 
Para 13 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 20915 
of2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 09 .10.2009 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Revision No. 543of1989. 
V. Shekhar, Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Sr. Advs., Manoj Saxena, 
C Shashank Shekhar, Ramkrishna, Soumo Palit, Prithviraj Singh, Ms. Stuti 
N. Karnwal, Dr. Kailash Chand, Ajit Sharma, Ms. Seema Singh, Adnan, 
B. D. Jha, Shakeel Ahmed, Ms. Sadiya Shakeel, Ms. Preeti Jha, 
S. K. Sinha, Advs. for the appearing parties. 
D 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R. BANUMATHI, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 09.10.2009 passed 
by the High Court of Allahabad in Revision Petition No.543of1989 
dismissing the revision petition filed by the original plaintiff7Iandlord thereby 
E affirming the judgment of the trial court dismissing the ejectment suit of 
the plaintiff7Iandlord. 
3. Brief facts of the case are that the suit property No.37(old), 17 
and 18 (new numbers) situated at Beli Bazar, Meerut was let out by the 
original plaintiff/landlord (Nazar Mohammad Zaidi) to the original 
defendants (Abdul Qayuum and Hazi Anvaruul Haq) by way of registered 
F rent agreement dated 12.08.1968 for a period of ten years at the rent of 
Rs.750/- per month. There
was a specific term in the rent agreement 
which envisaged renewal of the rent agreement by execution of a separate 
registered agreement for a further period of five years at enhanced rent 
from Rs.750/- to Rs.800/-permonth. After expiry of the original term 
G oflease, landlord (Nazar Mohammad Zaidi) filed ejectment suit in SCC 
Suit No. 2of1981 for eviction of defendants/tenants inter alia on the 
pleas:- (i) that the period of lease has expired; the defendants/tenants 
have failed to get the fresh lease deed executed at the enhanced rent of 
Rs.800/- per month; (ii) the defendants/tenants have put up construction 
of shops in the suit premises and let out the same to third party in violation 
H
SMT. SYED SUGARA ZAIDI v. LAEEQ AHMAD (DEAD) 
441 
THROUGH LRS. [R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
of the terms of the rent agreement; and (iii) default in payment of rent A 
and municipal tax by the defendants. 
4. Respondents-tenants contested the suit stating that they have 
taken every possible step to get the lease deed renewed for a further 
period of five years and also sent the rent@Rs.800/-per month as per 
the terms of the lease deed dated 12.08.1968 to the original plaintiff who 
B 
refused to receive the same. The tenants further pleaded that the entire 
arrears ofrent, damages along with interest etc. have been deposited in 
the court under Section 20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings 
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short 'U.P. Act 
13 of 1972 ') and the suit for eviction is liable to be-ilismissed. 
c 
5. Upon consideration of the pleadings and evidence, the trial court 
framed eleven issues and dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintifV 
landlord has not been able to establish any of the grounds for eviction 
specified under Section 20 of the U .P. Act 13 of 1972. Insofar as the 
issue of construction by defendants/tenants allegedly in violation of terms 
of rent agreement was concerned, the trial court held that the construction D 
was in consonance with the terms of the rent agreement and there was 
nothing in the rent agreement which restricted the right of defendants/ 
tenants to raise construction in the premises. So far as
non-renewal of 
the rent agreement is concerned, the trial court held that there was 
reluctance on the part of the plaintiff/landlord to renew the rent E 
agreement. The trial court further held that there was no default in 
payment of rent and the tenants continued paying the rent even after 
lapse of!ease period at the enhanced rate ofrent. Being aggrieved, the 
plaintiff/landlord approached the High Court by way of revision and the 
same came to be dismissed by the impugned order. 
F 
_ 6. Mr. V. Shekhar, learned senior counsel for the appellant 
contended that the lease deed dated 12.08.1968 was for a fixed period 
of ten years and it can further be extended for five years on executing 
fresh deed and since the defendants-tenants failed to get any fresh deed 
executed, their continuance in possession had become illegal after service 
of legal notice for eviction. It was further contended that the courts 
G 
below failed to appreciate that the respondents defaulted many times in 
payment of rent and payment of house tax to municipality and even on 
the plea under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972, the tenants 
defaulted in regularly depositing the admitted amount and therefore, the 
-respondents-tenants are liable to be evicted. 
H.
442 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
7. Reiterating the findings of the High Court and the trial court, 
B 
c 
the learned counsel for respondents-tenants submitted that the courts 
below recorded concurrent findings that every possible step was taken 
by the respondents-tenants and it was the plaintiff-landlord who failed to 
renew the rent agreement and the concurrent findings so recorded cannot 
be interfered with. 
8. Upon consideration of the rival contentions and materials on 
record, the question falling for consideration is whether after expiry of 
the lease period and the detennination of the tenancy whether the 
respondents-tenants can continue in possession of the suit property, when 
the lease was not renewed? 
9. The suit property was let out to the respondents-tenants by a 
registered rent agreement dated 12.08.1968 for a period of ten years on 
rent @ Rs.750/- per month. There was a specific term in the rent 
agreement which envisaged renewal of the rent agreement by execution 
of a separate rent agreement for a further period of five years at enhanced 
D rent from Rs. 750!- to Rs.800/- per month. The lease was not renewed 
and thereafter the landlord issued a notice to the respondents-tenants on 
09 .04.1979 seeking vacant possession of the suit property on account of 
detcnnination oflease due to efflux of time. 
10. The trial court was of the view that there was no violation of 
E the terms of the lease deed as they had put in sufficient efforts
in getting 
the rent agreement renewed. For atTiving at such conclusion, the trial 
court and the High Court placed reliance upon Ex. A-18 (13.06.1978) a 
notice allegedly issued by the plaintiff's advocate Guizar Mohd. intimating 
the tenants that they are willing to renew the lease as per the terms of 
F the rent agreement provided the tenants pay enhanced rent@ Rs.8001-
per month. This piece of evidence was categorically denied by the 
landlord. The trial court did not keep in view the denial of the appellant-
landlord regarding issuance of Ex. A-18 notice (13.06.1978). In the light 
of denial of issuance of Ex. A-18 notice, it was necessary to adduce 
evidence to prove that Ex. A-18 notice was actually issued on instructions 
G by the landlord. The burden was upon the respondents-tenants to prove 
that the said notice was issued by advocate Guizar Mohd. on the 
instructions of the landlord. The trial court pointed out that the 
respondents-tenants had taken steps to examine the said advocate; but 
he had not appeared before the court. From the materials on record, it 
H
SMT. SYED SUGARA ZAIDI v. LAEEQ AHMAD (DEAD) 
443 
THROUGH LRS. [R. BANUMATHI, J.] 
is not knmvn as to what steps were taken by the tenants to examine the 
A 
said advocate Guizar Mohd. The trial court, in our view, could have 
very well exercised its power under Order XVI Rule 14 CPC and 
summoned the said advocate as witness. In the absence of examination 
of the said advocate Guizar Mohd., the trial court ought not to have 
placed reliance upon Ex. A~l8 notice alleged to have been issued on 
B 
the instructions of the landlord. 
11. Ex. A-18 notice (13.06.1978) is said to have been issued on 
the instructions of the landlord. As pointed out earlier, the landlord issued 
eviction notice on 09. 04 .1979 seeking vacant possession of the premises. 
If really Ex. A-18 notice dated 13.06.1978 was issued at the instance of c 
the landlord offering to renew the lease, there was no requirement of 
issuance of eviction notice on 09 .04.1979 calling upon the respondents-
tenants to hand over the vacant possession ofthe·suit property. The 
courts below erred in ignoring landlord's denial of issuance of Ex. A-18 
notice (13 .06.1978) and non-examination ofadvocate Guizar Mohd. The 
High Court was not right in holding that the respondents-tenants have 
D 
taken steps to get renewal ofrent agreement and there was reluctance 
only on the part of the landlord. Be it noted, the tenants have not 
approached the court to get renewal of lease agreement beyond 
12.08.1978. 
12. As pointed out
earlier, on 09.04.1979, the landlord issued a 
notice to the respondents-tenants seeking vacant possession of the 
demised premises on account of detennination oflease due to efflux of 
time. After lapse of lease period, if a lessee continues in possession of 
the demised premises in absence of an assent by lessor, then he is a 
tenant by sufferance and exposes himself to be sued for ejectment at 
any time without any prior notice or demand of possession. 
13. The tenn in the lease agreement for renewal of lease deed 
does not ipso facto extend the tenure or term of the lease. So far as the 
clause for renewal in the lease deed is concerned, it was held in Delhi 
Development Authority v. Durga Chand Kaushish (1973) 2 SCC 825 
E 
F 
that such covenant only entitled a lessee to obtain a fresh lease in 
G 
accordance with and in due satisfaction of the law governing the making 
ofleases. In the absence of renewal of rent agreement, in our considered 
view, the possession of the respondents-tenants in the demised premises 
has become unlawful and they arc liable to be evicted.
444 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
14. Yet another ground for eviction is construction of shops in the 
suit premises by the tenants and sub-letting the same in violation of terms 
of rent agreement. Though, there is a clause in the rent agreement 
enabling the tenants to put up construction, there is no clause in the lease 
agreement permitting the tenants to transfer his interest of tenancy to 
B third party. It is the case of the appellant that in violation of the rent 
agreement, Anwar Ul Haq who was one of the original tenants, 
transferred his interest of tenancy in favour of third respondent Mohd. 
Ilyas alias Chaman. The appellant-landlord specifically denied that such 
transfer of interest in the tenancy was with the consent of the original 
landlord. On the other hand, the respondents-tenants in support of their 
C claim submitted that such transfer of interest in tenancy had taken place 
with the consent and knowledge of the original landlord, relied upon Exs. 
Al toA7 which are the receipts said to have been signed by the original 
landlord issuing to Mohd. Ilyas alias Chaman as one of the tenants. In 
view of specific denial by the appellant-landlord that they have permitted 
D such transfer of interest, the receipts Exs. Al to A 7 ought to have been 
proved by adducing evidence. The respondents-tenants, though relied 
upon the said documents, had not taken steps to prove those documents. 
15. On those issues, the courts below recorded findings
that the 
rent agreement nowhere prohibited any of the tenants from transferring 
E their interest in tenancy and therefore, there was no violation of any of 
the terms of the rent agreement. In noting so, the trial court lost sight of 
the fact that in the rent agreement, parties specifically incorporated clause 
(9), permitting sub-letting by tenants. Had the parties agreed to create 
or transfer ofinterest in the tenancy in favour of third party, they would · 
have added a specific term in that regard in the rent agreement. Though, 
F 
sub-letting of the premises for commercial purpose was agreed to by 
the original parties, transfer of interest in tenancy leading to creation of 
third party interest in the suit property could not have been done in the 
absence of a specific term in the rent agreement. Thus, the respondents-
tenants are liable to be evicted on the ground of violation of terms of rent 
agreement by transfer of interest in tenancy to respondent No. 3 -Mohd. 
G Ilyas alias Chaman. 
H 
16. So far as the default in payment of rent and the deposit arrears 
of rent by the defendants and whether the respondents arc entitled to 
the benefits of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972, the courts 
below recorded concurrent findings that Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act
SMT. SYED SUGARA ZAIDI v. LAEEQ AHMAD (DEAD) 
445 
THROUGH LRS. [R. BANUMATHI, J.J 
13 of 1972 has been complied with. According to the appellant-landlord, 
A 
the respondents have failed to regularly deposit the rent in the trial court 
and there was no compliance of Section 20( 4) of the U.P. Act 13 ·of 
1972. Since we have held that the respondents-tenants are liable to be 
evicted on the ground of non-renewal of rent agreement and determination 
of tenancy and transfer of tenancy right in violation of terms of rent 
agreement, we are not proposed to go into the ground of default in payment B 
of rent and compliance of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act 13of1972. 
17. The courts below did not properly appreciate that after service 
of eviction notice on 09.04.1979 continuanc.e of respondents' possession 
in the demised premises had become illegal. The High Court did riot 
appreciate that the respondents have sub-let the property to third party 
C 
and are earning huge profits by simply paying a meager rent ofRs.800/ 
-per month. The respondents-tenants cannot squat on the property and 
make a profit for themselves at the cost of the appellant-landlord and 
the judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. 
· 
18. In the result, the impugned judgment is set aside and this appeal 
D 
is allowed. The respondents-tenants and the sub-tenants inducted by 
them and any other person claiming through them are directed to hand 
over vacant possession of the suit premises within a
period of one year 
from today, failing which the respondents-tenants and their sub-tenants 
or other persons claiming through them shall be liable for contempt of E 
Court in addition to other proceedings. No order as to costs. 
Ankit Gyan 
Appeal allowed.