The Tenant is protected by virtue of section 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Act,1972: Supreme Court

IN THE CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4750 OF 2011 APPELLANT RAMESH CHANDRA DWIVEDI & ORS. RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T ABHAY S. OKA J By this appeal the appellant who was the writ petitioner before the High Court at Allahabad has taken an exception to the Judgment and Order dated 9th October 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court. The appellant is claiming to be the owner of premises No 74 13 Collectorganj Kanpur Nagar Uttar Pradesh. The appellant acquired the said premises by a sale deed dated 13 th March 1994 executed by power of attorney holder on behalf of the original owners Shri Vishnu Swaroop Mishra and Shri Gopal Swaroop Mishra. The petitioner claimed that the physical possession of the premises subject matter of the sale deed was handed over to her by her vendors which includes two Gaddis two godowns and a tin shed which was earlier given by the appellant’s vendor to one Dhruv Narayan Tripathi by way of tenancy An application was made by the second respondent for allotment of the disputed premises by invoking Section 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban BuildingsAct 1972 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban BuildingsRules 1972 an inspection report dated 20th May 1995 was submitted to the District Magistrate. The report recorded that the first respondent Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi was carrying on business in the disputed premises in the name and style of M s Ramesh Chandra Pravesh Kumar. It was stated in the report that first respondent informed that he was inducted as a tenant by Shri Dhruv Narayan Tripathi in the disputed premises in November 1975 at monthly rent of Rs.500 . The District Magistratewhile exercising the powers under the said Act held that on the basis of the agreement dated 15 th November 1975 the first respondent was inducted as a tenant by the said Dhruv Narayan Tripathi acting as a power of attorney holder and manager of the owners. He held that the original owners never objected to the action of the said Dhruv Narayan Tripathi. The Addl. City Magistrate held that the first respondent was in continuous possession as a tenant on the basis of the said agreement dated 15th November 1975 and therefore he has become a tenant of the disputed premises Hence it was held that the disputed premises were not vacant within the meaning of sub sectionof Section 12 of the said A writ petition was preferred by the petitioner against the said Judgment and Order of the Addl. City Magistrate which was rejected by the impugned Judgment and Order dated 15th November 1975 The learned counsel appearing for the appellant in support of the appeal submitted that the said Dhruv Narayan Tripathi had no authority to induct the first respondent as a tenant on behalf of the predecessors in title of the petitioner. She submitted that the said Dhruv Narayan Tripathi was the tenant inducted by the predecessors in title of the appellant. She submitted that on 5th July 1976 the disputed premises were vacant. She submitted that the petitioner purchased the property in the year 1994 and from that day she has not received any income from the disputed premises. She submitted that the writ petition before the Allahabad High Court was of the year 1997 which was decided on 09th October 2009 and that the present appeal is of the year 2011. Thus the submission is that during the last 27 years the appellant has not received any benefit from the disputed premises. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Achal Misra v. Rama Shanker Singh & Ors. 1 Ram Murti Devi v Pushpa Devi & Ors.2 and Harish Tandon v. Addl. District Magistrate Allahabad U.P. & Ors.3 11(2005) 5 SCC 531 2(2017) 15 SCC 230 31 SCC 537 The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent invited our attention to the findings recorded by the Addl. City Magistrate holding that the first respondent has been in possession of the disputed premises since 1975 and is paying rent even prior to 5th July 1976. He invited our attention to the deposit of the rent made by the first respondent in the Court of Civil Judge Kanpur Nagar by taking recourse to sub sectionof Section 30 of the said Act. He submitted that as per his instructions the first respondent has been regularly depositing the rent in the said proceedings and even if some part of the rent is not deposited the first respondent shall do The learned counsel appearing for the appellant by way of rejoinder to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent urged that it will be unjust to drive the appellant to file a suit for eviction 27 years after she purchased the disputed premises. 9. We have carefully considered the submissions. We have perused the material on record as well as the provisions of the said Act. Sub section of Section 12 incorporates the concept of deemed vacancy of the building in certain cases Under clauseof sub sectionof Section 12 a tenant of a building shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building or a part thereof if he has allowed it to be occupied by any person who is not a member of his family. Sub sectionof Section 12 lays down that in case of non residential buildings where a tenant carrying on business in the building admits a person who is not a member of his family as a partner the tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building Sub Sectionof Section 12 of the said Act provides that any building or a part of which landlord or tenant has ceased to occupy within the meaning of sub sectionsorof Section 12 shall be deemed to be vacant. 10. Under clause of sub section of Section 16 of the said Act the District Magistrate is empowered to require any landlord to let any building which has fallen vacant to any person specified in the order 11. Section 14 of the said Act is material which is thus “14. Regularisation or occupation of existing anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force any licenseeor a tenant in occupation of a building with the consent of the landlord immediately before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction Amendment) Act 1976 not being a person against whom any suit or proceeding for eviction is pending before any court or authority on the date of such commencement shall be deemed to be an authorised licensee or tenant of such Under Section 14 a tenant in occupation of a building with the consent of the landlord immediately before the commencement of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Amendment Act) 1976 shall be deemed to an authorised tenant. The date of commencement of the Amendment Act is 5th July 1976. 12. The first respondent relied upon the agreement dated 15 th November 1975 purportedly executed by the said Dhruv Narayan Tripathi claiming to be the power of attorney holder and manager of the original owners. The first respondent is the second party to the said Agreement on whom tenancy in respect of the disputed premises was conferred. The finding of fact recorded by the Addl. City Magistrate is that the original owners never denied that the said Dhruv Narayan Tripathi was their attorney or manager and that the original owners neither served any notice nor filed a suit for eviction. In the counter the first respondent has relied upon the said agreement at Annexure R 4 in paragraph 5. In the rejoinder the appellant alleged that the said document was fabricated. However the petitioner has not produced on record anything to show that from 1975 to 1994 the original owners raised any objection to the induction of the first respondent as a tenant of the disputed premises in the year 1975. Thus the first respondent was inducted in possession as a tenant prior to 5th July 1976. The finding recorded by the Addl. City Magistrate is that to the presence of the first respondent the predecessors in title of the appellant had never raised any objection right from the year 1975. Therefore the Addl. City Magistrate concluded that in absence of the evidence of predecessors in title of the appellant it is very difficult to accept that right from the year 1975 the first respondent continued to be in possession without the consent of the original owners. There is nothing wrong about this inference drawn by the Addl. Magistrate that the first respondent was inducted with the consent of the predecessors in title of the appellant. We find no error in the said view taken by the Addl. City Magistrate and confirmed by the High Court 13. As the first respondent was a tenant in possession on 5th July 1976 with the consent of the original owners he shall be deemed to be a tenant by virtue of Section 14 of the said Act. 14. Therefore there is no reason to find fault with the Order of the Addl. City Magistrate. By virtue of Section 14 the first respondent gets the protection as a tenant under the said Act Therefore if the appellant wants the first respondent to be evicted she will have to take recourse to section 20 of the said Act. Depending upon the circumstances she has also an option to take recourse to section 21 of the said Act 15. We have carefully perused the decisions relied upon by the appellant. The decision in the case of Achal Misrahas no bearing on the controversy in this appeal. Lastly the decision in the case of Ram Murti Devidoes not deal with the issue involved It deals with the issue of unlawful subletting. None of these decisions have any application to the facts of this case. 16. Though there is no merit in the appeal it will be necessary to ensure that the first respondent regularly pays rent in respect of the disputed premises. In the objections filed by the first respondent he has specifically taken a stand that the first respondent has filed Misc. Case No. 284 70 04 in the Court of Civil Judge at Kanpur Nagar under sub section of Section 30 of the said Act. The learned counsel appearing for first respondent claimed that the entire amount of rent has been deposited in the said case. 17. We direct the first respondent to deposit all the arrears of rent if any up to 31st August 2021 within a period of six weeks from today and thereafter continue to regularly deposit the rent in the aforesaid proceedings. He can also pay the amount to the petitioner. The petitioner can always apply for withdrawal of the rent amount in accordance with sub sectionof section 30 of the said Act. If eviction proceedings are filed by the petitioner considering the case of the petitioner that she is deprived of the benefit of the disputed premises right from year 1994 the concerned authority or the Court as the case may be shall give priority to the disposal of the eviction 18. Subject to what is directed above there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. ABHAY S. OKA New Delhi September 20 2021

Summary: The appellant who was the writ petitioner approached the supreme court regarding the judgment and order passed on the 9th October 2009 by a Single Judge in the High Court at Allahabad. In the Supreme Court of India, this judgement was given by Honorable Mr Justice Abhay S. Oka, on the 20th of September 2021 in the case of Geetha Gupta Versus Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi &amp; Ors., [Civil Appeal NO. 4750 OF 2011.]  The following are the brief facts of the case, the appellant is claiming to be the owner of premises No. 74/13 Collectorganj, Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. She acquired the same by a sale deed back in 1994 and claimed that the physical possession was handed over to her by her vendors, which was earlier given by the appellant’s vendor to one Dhruv Narayan Tripathi by way of tenancy (possession of land or property as a tenant). The second Respondent made an application regarding the disputed premises by invoking Section 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. It was held that the disputed premises was vacant in accordance with subsection 4 of section 20 of the said ACT and rule 8(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings rules 1972. An inspection report on the 20th of may 1995 was submitted to the district magistrate.  Which stated that the first respondent Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi was carrying a business in this disputed premises and he was inducted as a tenant by Dhruv Narayan Tripathi and paid him a monthly rent of Rs. 500. District Magistrate held that with respect to the agreement on the 15th November 1975 the first respondent was inducted as a tenant by Mr Dhruv Narayan Tripathi who was acting as an owner and the original owners never objected to this action. Finally, the magistrate held that the disputed premises were not vacant within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 12 of the said Act. The petitioner filed a writ petition against the judgment by the additional city magistrate which was rejected on the 15th of November. The counsel representing the appellant held that Mr Dhruv Narayan Tripathi had no right to induct the respondent as a tenant on behalf of the petitioner because Mr Dhruv himself was a tenant, the counsel further held that this premises has been vacant since 1976 and since the day she purchased this land she has not received any income from the premises and concluded that she has not received any benefits from the premises for the last 27 years. The counsel further relied upon the following cases which are in accordance with the current situation, Achal Misra v. Rama Shanker Singh &amp; Ors [1(2005) 5 SCC 531], Ram Murti Devi v. Pushpa Devi &amp; Ors [(2017) 15 SCC 230], Harish Tandon v. Addl. District Magistrate, Allahabad, U.P. &amp; Ors [(1995) 1 SCC 537].  The counsel representing the respondent held that according to the discoveries recorded by the Additional City Magistrate the respondent has been in possession of the disputed premises and is even paying the rent. He showed his deposit of rent in the Court of Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Kanpur Nagar by taking recourse to sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the said Act. The respondent has done his duty in depositing the rent and if some part is still pending, he shall fulfil the same. The counsel for the appellant held that it is not justified that the appellant has to file a suit for eviction 27 years after she purchased the disputed premises. The Honourable Supreme Court held that the finding of fact was recorded by the Addl. City Magistrate is that the original owners never denied that the said Dhruv Narayan Tripathi was their attorney or manager and that the original owners neither served any notice nor filed a suit for eviction. At first, the respondent was a tenant with the consent of the original owners therefore he shall be deemed By virtue of Section 14, the first respondent gets the protection as a tenant under the said Act to be a tenant by virtue of section 14 of the said Act. Therefore there is no reason to find fault with the order of the additional city magistrate though there is no merit in the appeal, it will be necessary to ensure that the first respondent regularly pays rent in respect of the disputed premises. The Honourable Supreme Court concluded that “We direct the first respondent to deposit all the arrears of rent, if any, up to 31st August 2021 within a period of six weeks from today and thereafter, continue to regularly deposit the rent in the aforesaid proceedings. He can also pay the amount to the petitioner. The petitioner can always apply for withdrawal of the rent amount in accordance with subsection (3) of section 30 of the said Act. If eviction proceedings are filed by the petitioner, considering the case of the petitioner that she is deprived of the benefit of the disputed premises right from the year 1994, the concerned authority or the Court, as the case may be, shall give priority to the disposal of the eviction proceedings.”