Case: SMT. SUDAMA DEVI Vs. VIJAY NATH GUPTA

3. The appellants are the legal representatives of original defendantho died during the pendency of the civil suit whereas the respondents are legal representatives of Parasnath Gupta, Manager of theRamchander Ji, owner of the suit house.4. The plaintiff claiming to be the landlord of the suit house filed a civil suit through his Manager against theSingh for his eviction from the suit house. The plaintiff, inter alia, alleged that Chandrabhan Singh was his monthly tenant living in the suit house. It was alleged that the defendant has all along been in arrears of rent inasmuch as he failed to pay the monthly rent from January 1977 onwards to the plaintiff.5. It was further alleged that the defendant paid a sum of Rs.656.25 to the plaintiff, which the plaintiff adjusted against part of the arrears up to May 1980. It was alleged that despite the adjustment being made, the arrears still remained unpaid and default in payment of monthly rent continued to persist and hence notice for eviction and demand of arrears of rent was given by the plaintiff to the defendant followed by filing of the civil suit claiming a decree for eviction of the defendant from the suit house and arrears of rent against the defendant. The plaintiff sought a decree for theeviction from the suit house on the ground ofof arrears of rent as specified under Section 20(2)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to. The defendant denied the averments made in the plaint and joined issues. One of the grounds raised by the defendant was that the provisions of the Act do not apply to the suit house because the suit house is the property of the Charitable Trust.7. Issues were framed. Parties adduced their evidence. The Trial Court by its judgment/order dated 02.08.1997 passed the decree for eviction and arrears of rent. It was held that the suit is maintainable, that the provisions of the Act are applicable, that the defendant was a defaulter in payment of monthly rent and its arrears, and that a ground under Section 20(2)(a) of the Act is made out against the defendant for his eviction from the suit house. Accordingly, the decree foreviction from the suit house was passed.8. The defendant felt aggrieved and filed a civil revision before the Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur. By order dated 22.04.1998, the Additional District Judge dismissed the revision and confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.9. It may be mentioned here that one question was also raised by the parties in the case, namely, whether any case under Section 20(4) read with its proviso was made out by the parties or not?10. It was the case of the plaintiff (landlord) that the defendant is not entitled to take any benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act to avoid the decree of eviction passed against him under Section 20(2)(a) of the Act because his son, who is a member of thefamily, as defined under Section 3(g) of the Act, has built his own house in the same city and hence thecase would fall under proviso to Section 20(4) of the Act which would make Section 20(4) inapplicable to the tenant. The defendant opposed this contention on facts stating that his son lives separately from him and hence proviso will not apply. The contention of the plaintiff was upheld by the Revisional Court (ADJ) and accordingly the eviction decree passed under Section 20(2)(a) of the Act against the defendant was confirmed by denying the defendant the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act.11. The defendant felt aggrieved and filed writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court. By impugned order, the Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order of the Revisional Court (ADJ) and also affirmed all the findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court, giving rise to filing of this appeal by the defendant (tenant) by way of special leave in this Court.

Court's reasoning:
17. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit in the appeal.In other words, the submission was that it is only when any member ofy 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 ofof Section 20 but not otherwise.We find no merit in this submission.27. In our view, the language of proviso being plain and simple leaving no ambiguity therein, we cannot read the words of the proviso, the way learned counsel for the appellant wants us to read therein to accept his submission. In our view, if such was the intention of the legislature, then the proviso would have been worded accordingly. Such is, however, not the case here.28. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we concur with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below and accordingly hold 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 ofof Section 20 because his case falls under the proviso toby 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.