Supreme Court Allows Tenants to Repair Dilapidated Building: Ram Prakash vs. Puttan Lal (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 12 April 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 355
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., M.R. Shah, J.
Can a tenant prevent eviction by offering to repair a dilapidated building? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, providing a significant ruling on tenant rights and responsibilities. This case revolves around a dispute between a landlord seeking eviction based on the dilapidated condition of the building and tenants who offered to repair the structure at their own cost. The Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and M.R. Shah, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case originated from a dispute between a landlord and his tenants. The landlord, Puttan Lal, sought to evict his tenants, Ram Prakash and another, from a property, arguing that the building was in a dilapidated condition and required demolition. The tenants occupied two different portions of the same building. The landlord initially also claimed a bonafide requirement, but later dropped this claim, pursuing the case solely on the grounds of the building’s dilapidated state. The tenants contested the claim, arguing that the building was structurally sound and only needed repairs, which they were willing to undertake at their own expense.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The landlord initially filed an application before the Prescribed Authority, Almora, seeking the release of the building, which was rejected. The landlord then appealed to the District Judge, Almora, who also rejected the appeal, upholding the Prescribed Authority’s decision. Subsequently, the landlord filed a writ petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. The High Court initially allowed the writ petition and ordered the eviction of the tenants. However, the Supreme Court set aside this order and remanded the case back to the High Court for reconsideration. On remand, the High Court again allowed the landlord’s petition. The tenants then filed a review application, which was also dismissed by the High Court, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). This section allows a landlord to seek the release of a building if it is in a dilapidated condition and requires demolition and reconstruction. The relevant part of the section reads as:

“21. Proceedings for release of building under occupation of tenant.—(1) The prescribed authority may, on an application of the landlord, order the eviction of a tenant from a building under tenancy, if it is satisfied that—
(a) that the building is bona fide required either in its existing form or after demolition and new construction by the landlord for occupation by himself or any member of his family, or any person for whose benefit the building is held by him, either for residential purposes or for purposes of any profession, trade or calling, or where the landlord is the trustee of a public charitable trust, for the objects of the trust;

(b) that the building is in a dilapidated condition and is required for purposes of demolition and new construction.”

Arguments

Arguments of the Appellants (Tenants):

• The tenants argued that the building was not in a state of disrepair that necessitated demolition and reconstruction.
• They presented evidence from a civil engineer, Shri B.S. Rautela, and a retired Assistant Engineer of PWD, Shri P.C. Joshi, who testified that the building was structurally sound and could be made habitable with repairs.
• The tenants expressed their willingness to repair the building at their own cost, without seeking any adjustment in rent.
• The tenants contended that the notice issued by the Nagar Palika, Almora, in 1996/1997 stating that the building was in a dilapidated condition, was old and the building still stood after 24 years.

Arguments of the Respondents (Landlord):

• The landlord argued that the building was in a dilapidated condition and posed an imminent danger of collapse.
• The landlord relied on the deposition of a Town Planning Engineer, Shri B.C. Joshi, and the notice issued by the Corporation to support their claim that the building needed to be demolished and reconstructed.
• The landlord opposed the tenants’ offer to repair the building, asserting that the condition of the building was beyond repair.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:

✓ Whether the High Court was justified in ordering the eviction of the tenants based on the dilapidated condition of the building, despite the tenants’ willingness to repair the building at their own cost?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. The primary focus was on the factual matrix of the case and the interpretation of Section 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court considered Section 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972* and interpreted it in a manner that provided an opportunity to the tenant to repair the building before eviction.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several key factors. The Court noted that despite the notice issued by the Nagar Palika in 1996/1997, the building still stood after 24 years. The willingness of the tenants to repair the building at their own cost without any adjustment in rent was a significant factor. The Court aimed to balance the rights of the landlord with the tenants’ interest in retaining their tenancy. The Court also considered the different opinions and reports regarding the condition of the building.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court’s decision was not based on a strict interpretation of the law but rather on a practical approach that considered the specific circumstances of the case. The Court aimed to provide a fair resolution by giving the tenants a chance to rectify the situation before resorting to eviction.

The Supreme Court observed that “even considering the fact that the notice was issued by the Nagar Palika, Almora in the year 1996/1997 stating that the building was in a dilapidated condition and therefore the same is required to be demolished and still even after period of approximately 24 years, the building stands”. The Court further noted that “the tenants are ready and willing to get the building in question repaired at their own cost and the same is not to be deducted from the rent”. The Court concluded that “one opportunity is required to be given to the tenants to get the building repaired.”

The court did not discuss any alternative interpretations of the law. The court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges agreeing on the final order.

Key Takeaways

• Tenants may be given an opportunity to repair a dilapidated building before eviction, especially if they are willing to bear the cost.
• The courts may consider the specific circumstances of each case, rather than strictly applying the law.
• The age of a notice regarding a building’s condition can be a relevant factor in determining whether eviction is warranted.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• The tenants are permitted to repair the building at their own cost within six months.
• The tenants shall not claim any adjustment of the expenses incurred over repairing from the rent to be paid.
• The Town Planning Authority of the Corporation is to inspect the building after repairs to determine if it is still dilapidated.
• If the building is still found to be dilapidated after repairs, the landlord can initiate eviction proceedings before the competent authority.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that tenants should be given an opportunity to repair a dilapidated building before eviction, provided they are willing to bear the cost and the building’s condition is not beyond repair. This case does not explicitly overrule any previous position of law but provides a practical approach in cases involving dilapidated buildings and tenant rights.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Ram Prakash vs. Puttan Lal allows tenants an opportunity to repair a dilapidated building at their own cost before facing eviction. This ruling emphasizes a balanced approach, considering both the landlord’s concerns and the tenants’ rights, and provides a practical solution in cases of building disrepair. The court’s decision highlights the importance of considering the specific facts of each case, rather than strictly adhering to legal provisions.