CHETAR SEN JAIN A v.

ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE III, DEHRADUN AND ORS.

AUGUST 7, 1992

[T.K. THOMMEN AND.S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.) B

--f_, U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972: '

Section 14-Regularisation of Tenancy-Tenant in occupation 'Of c - premises with the consent of the landlord before the Act came into force-No suit or other proceedings for eviction pending at the time of coming into force of Amending Act of 1976-Whether tenant entitled lo benefit of regularisation.

The appellant-tenant took on lease the premises belonging to the respondent in 1958 for residential purposes. He shifted his residence in D 1968, but continued to be in possession of the same till 1.982 under a fresh lease agreed upon between him and the landlord for the purpose of storing goods.

In 1982 one 'D' filed an application for allotment of the premise!' in E terms of Section 12(3) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Lett, ing, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 alleging that a "deemed vacancy" had arlsen by reason of the tenant constructing a residential building of his own , and - shifting therein. The Rent Court declared the premises to be vacant,, but the litigation went upto the High Court, which held that the questin of vacancy could be decided at the time of allotment of the premises or the F )::: release of the same to the landlord.

Thereafter, in 1984 the premises were released to the landJord by the order of the Rent Court but in revision the District Court remande(l the case to the Rent Court, which held that the tenant was in occupatin of G the premises with the consent of the landJord and no vacancy had, there-

--( fore, occurred. In revision, the Additional District Judge also held that the premises having been at all material times in the possession of the tenant, no vacany had occurred. However, on a Writ Petition filed by the landlord, the High Court reversed the concurrent findings and remanded the case to the District Court for fresh findings. Hence, the appeal by special leave H 769

A by the tenant.

On behalf of tlie tenant/appellant it was contended that lligb Court was wrong in remanding the case for fresh findings and that section 14 of the Act as amended by Act 28 of 1976, dealing with the regularisation of occupation of existing tenants was attracted and all defects, if any, in the occupation of the premises by the appellant were cured, and the landlord was not entitled to seek recovery of the premises.

Allowing the appeal, this Court,

C HELD: 1.1. Section 14 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 begins with a non obstante clause. This clause leaves no doubt that a tenant who has been in occupation of the premises with the consent of the landlord immediately before the Amending Act of 1976 came into force and against whom no case for eviction was pending on that day, is deemed to be an authorised tenant of the premises.

D His occupation is thus statutorily regularised. Such a tenant has security of tenure, subject, of course, to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Act dealing with eviction of tenants on specified grounds.-[773G-H, 774 A-F]-

1.2. In the instant case, the tenant has been in occupation of the E premises in question since long prior to the coming into force of the Act of

1972. At any rate in 1971 there was a fresh oral lease between the parties pursuant to which the tenant has been ever since using the premises as a godown. Besides, the proceedings against the tenant on the ground of deemed vacancy did not commence till the filing of the application for allotment of the premises in 1982 on the allegation that a deemed vacancy F had arisen in terms of section 12 (3) of the Act. Thus, the tenant had been put into possession of the premises by the landlord and he had been treated as a tenant long before the coming into force of the 1972 Act and no proceedings against the tenant for recovery of the premises had been initiated at any time prior to 1982. The tenant had been in occupation of the premises at all G matrial times with the consent of the landlord, and no suit or other proceeding for eviction of the tenant was pending before any court or authority when the Amending Act of 1976 came into force. [772E-G, 773F]

1.3. In these circumstances, the High Court was wrong in setting aside the concurrent findings of the statutory authorities and remanding H the case for further evidence. [7748)

--;:,(

CHETAR JAIN v. ADDL. DISTT. JUDGE [THOMMEN, J.] 771

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2862 of

1 A 1992.

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.3.1991 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 15504of1988.

C.S. Vaidyanathan, P.K. Jain, Manoj Goyal and Ms. Abba R. Sharma B for the Appellant. ·

Satish Chandra and D.K. Garg for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

THOMMEN, J. Leave granted.

This appeal arises from the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 15504 of 1988. The appellant is

 the tenant. The landlord, respondent herein, filed the Writ Petition in the High Court challenging the concurrent findings of the Rent Control and

1 D Eviction Officer, Rishikesh, Dehradun (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rent Controller' or 'Rent Court') and the Court of the Additional District Judge III, Dehradun (the "Revisional Court"), to the effect that the tenant was in • occupation of the premises in question since prior to 15.6.1976 for nonresidential purposes. Setting aside these findings of the Rent Court and the I E Revisional Court and allowing the respondent-landlord's Writ Petition, the High Court remanded the case to the District Court, Dehradun for fresh findings on the points in issue.

This order of remand by the High Court is now challenged by the

1 tenant in this appeal. It is not disputed that the premises in question were F taken on lease by the teriant in 1958. He was residing in the premises. In 1968 he shifted his residence, but retained possession of the premises. In

1971 a fresh lease was agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant whereunder the tenant continued his possession of the premises for the

1 purpose of storing goods. The premises have ever since been used by the G tenant as a godown. On 4.3.1982 one Y.P. Dhuliya filed an application for allotment of the premises in terms of section 12(3) of the U.P. Urban

Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. 13 of 1972) alleging that a "deemed vacancy" had arisen by reason of the ' tenant building a residential building of his own and shifting his residence to that building. The Rent Court declared the premises to be vacant on

1 H

SUPREME COURT ~EPORTS

(1992] 3 S.C.R.

A 27.8.1982. A review petition was filed by the tenant against that order. That petition was allowed by the Rent Court. The landlord then filed a revision in the District Court. His revision was allowed on 23.9.1983. The tenant then approached the High Court by Writ Petition No. 11781 of 1983.

Dismissing the Writ Petition on 17.4.1983, the High Court held that the B question of vacancy could be decided at the time of allotment of the premises or the release of the same to the landlord.

On 25.4.1984 the premises were released to the landlord by order of the Rent Court. The tenant approached the District Court in revision. That Court remanded the case to the Rent Court. The Rent Court on 2.5.1986 C held that the tenant was in occupation of the premises since before 15.7.1978 with the conseot of the landlord and no vacancy had therefore occurred. The landlord filed a revision petition before the Additional District Judge. That petition was, by Order dated 11.7.1988, dismissed. The learned Judge held that the premises having been at all material times in D the possession of the tenant, no vacancy had occurred. Against these concurrent findings of the Rent Court dated 2.5.1986 and the District Court dated 11.7.1988, the landlord filed the Writ Peitition in the High Court.

The High Court by the impugned order, as aforesaid, reversed the findings and remanded the case to the District Court.

E Having heard counsel on both sides, it does not seem to be any longer in doubt that the tenant has been in occupation of the premises in question since long prior to the coming into force of Act 13 of 1972. At . any rate in 1971 there was a fresh oral lease between the parties pursuant to which the tenant has been ever since using the premises as a godown.

F It is also not in doubt that the proceedings against the tenant on the ground . of deemed vacancy did not commence until 4.3.1982, when one Y.P.

Dhuliya filed an application for allotment of the premises on the allegation that a deemed vacancy had arisen in terms of section 12(3) of the Act.

These facts show that the tenant had been put into possession of the premises by the landlord and he had been treated as a tenant long before G the com.jog into force of Act 13 of 1972. It is also clear that no proceedings against the tenant for recovery of the premises had been initiated at any time prior to 1982. The tenant had been in occupation of the premises at all material times with the consent of the landlord.

H Various questions are agitated before us on behalf of the tenant. Mr.

I -y

t- -

CHETAR JAIN v. ADDL. DISTT. JUDGE (1HOMMEN, J.J 773

Vaidyanathan appearing for the tenant contends that the High Court was A wrong in remanding the case. The view expressed by the high Court as to the test to decide the character and nature. of the building or as to the applicability of section 12(3), counsel says, was incorrect. He, however, raises a very significant contention on the basis of which we propose to dispose of this case. Mr. Vaidyanathan says that fa<,:ts which are not in B dispute clearly shqw that section 14 of Act 13 of 1972 (as amended by Act ' 28 of 1976) dealing with the regularisation of occupation of existing tenants is attracted and all defects, if any, in the occupation of the premises by the appellant are cured, and the landlord is not entitled to seek recovery of the premises.

cc Section 14 reads :

"14. Regularisation of occupation of existing tenants - Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, any licensee (within the meaning of I section 2-A) or a tenant in occupation of a building with the D 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 commence- E ment shall be deemed to be an authorised licensee or tenant of such building."

It is not in dispute that the tenant has been in uninterrupted occupa- tion of the building with the consent of the landlord at any rate during the period from 1971 to 1982. It is also not disputed that no suit or other F proceeding for eviction of the tenant was pending before any court or authority at the relevant time, i.e., on 5.7.1976, when U.P. Act 28 of 1976, amending U .P. Act 13 of 1972, came .into: force.

Section 14 begins with a non obsttlhte clause. It says "Notwithstanding G anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force ...... ". This clalise leaves no doubt that a tenant, who lias been in occupation of the premises with the consent of the landlord immediately

1 before 5.7.1976 and against whom no case for eviction was pending on that day, is deemed to be an authorised tenant of the premises. His occupation is thus statutorily regularised. Such a tenant has security of tenure, subject, H

A of course, to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Act dealing with eviction of tenants on specified grounds.

In the circumstances, the High Court was wrong in setting aside the concurrent findings of the statutory authorities and remanding the case for further evidence. The judgment of the High Court is set aside. The order B of the iearned Additional District Judge dated 11.7.1988 is restored.

The appeal shall, accordingly, stand allowed with costs.

N.P.V.

Appeal allowed.