Supreme Court Upholds Eviction Decree: Tenant Loses Benefit of Rent Act Due to Son’s House Ownership

Date of the Judgment: 17 April 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 328

Judges: R. K. Agrawal, J., Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

Can a tenant avoid eviction for non-payment of rent if a family member owns a house in the same city? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The Court examined whether the tenant could claim protection under Section 20(4) of the Act, despite the fact that his son owned a house in the same city. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice R. K. Agrawal and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, with Justice Sapre authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute between Smt. Sudama Devi and others (appellants), the legal representatives of the original tenant Chandrabhan Singh, and Vijay Nath Gupta and another (respondents), the legal representatives of the landlord, Shri Ramchander Ji. The landlord, through his manager Parasnath Gupta, filed a suit for eviction against Chandrabhan Singh, alleging that he was a monthly tenant and had defaulted on rent payments since January 1977. The landlord claimed that the tenant had only paid a partial amount of Rs. 656.25, which was adjusted against the arrears up to May 1980, but significant arrears remained unpaid. Consequently, the landlord issued a notice for eviction and demanded the outstanding rent, leading to the filing of the eviction suit based on Section 20(2)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court ruled in favor of the landlord, decreeing eviction and payment of arrears, finding that the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 applied, and that the tenant was a defaulter under Section 20(2)(a) of the Act. The Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur, dismissed the tenant’s revision and upheld the Trial Court’s decision. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad also dismissed the tenant’s writ petition, affirming the findings of the lower courts. The tenant then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of specific sections of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. These include:

• Section 3(g): Defines “family” in relation to a landlord or tenant. It includes a spouse, male lineal descendants, and certain other relatives normally residing with them.

  “family” in relation to a landlord or tenant of a building, means, his or her- (i)spouse; (ii) male lineal descendants (iii)such parents, grandparents and any unmarried or widowed or divorced or judicially separated daughter or daughter of a male lineal descendant, as may have been normally residing with him or her, and includes, in relation to a landlord, any female having a legal right of residence in that building”

• Section 20(2)(a): Specifies that a tenant can be evicted if they are in arrears of rent for not less than four months and fail to pay within one month of receiving a demand notice.

  “(a)That the tenant is in arrears of rent for not less than four months, and has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month from the date of service upon him of a notice of demand”

• Section 20(4): Allows a tenant to avoid eviction if they pay all arrears, damages, and costs at the first hearing. However, the proviso to this section states that this benefit is not available if the tenant or a family member has built or acquired a vacant residential building in the same city.

  “In any suit for eviction on the ground mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2), if at the first hearing of the suit the tenant unconditionally pays or tenders to the landlord or deposits in court the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation of the building due from him (such damages for use and occupation being calculated at the same rate as rent) together with interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent per annum and the landlord’s costs of the suit in respect thereof, after deducting therefrom any amount already deposited by the tenant under sub-section (1) of Section 30, the Court may, in lieu of passing a decree for eviction on that ground, pass an order relieving the tenant against his liability for eviction on that ground: Provided that nothing in this sub-section, shall apply in relation to a tenant who or any member of whose family has built or has otherwise acquired in a vacant state, or has got vacated after acquisition, any residential building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area.”

Arguments

Appellants’ (Tenant’s) Arguments:

• The tenant argued that the eviction decree under Section 20(2)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 is subject to compliance with Section 20(4) of the same Act.
• The tenant contended that he is entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4), as the landlord failed to prove that the tenant’s case fell under the proviso to Section 20(4).
• The tenant submitted that although his son constructed a house in the same city, his son was living separately, and therefore, the proviso to Section 20(4) should not apply.
• The tenant argued that he should not be deprived of the benefit of Section 20(4) because his son lives separately, and the proviso should only apply if the family member lives with the tenant.

Respondents’ (Landlord’s) Arguments:

• The landlord supported the High Court’s order and argued that it did not require any intervention.
• The landlord contended that the tenant’s son, being a member of the family as defined under Section 3(g) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, owning a house in the same city, makes the proviso to Section 20(4) applicable, thus disentitling the tenant from the benefit of Section 20(4).
• The landlord argued that the tenant’s son owning a house in the same city is sufficient to trigger the proviso, regardless of whether the son lives with the tenant or separately.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the tenant is entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, despite his son owning a house in the same city.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 3(g) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972: Defines “family” to include lineal descendants.
• Section 20(2)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972: Specifies the ground for eviction due to rent arrears.
• Section 20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972: Allows a tenant to avoid eviction by paying arrears, but with a proviso that excludes tenants whose family members own property in the same city.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Section 3(g) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972: The Court used this definition to establish that the tenant’s son was a member of the family, making the proviso applicable.
• Section 20(2)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972: The Court acknowledged this section as the basis for the eviction suit, but focused on the applicability of Section 20(4).
• Section 20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972: The Court interpreted the proviso strictly, stating that it applies if a family member owns a house in the same city, regardless of their living arrangement.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by a literal interpretation of the proviso to Section 20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The Court emphasized that the language of the proviso is clear and unambiguous, stating that if a tenant or any member of their family has built or acquired a residential building in the same city, the tenant cannot claim the benefit of Section 20(4). The Court did not find any ambiguity in the provision that would require a different interpretation.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal text, with a lesser emphasis on the specific facts of the case. The Court did not consider the fact that the tenant’s son was living separately as a relevant factor.

The Court considered the argument that the tenant’s son was living separately but rejected it, stating that the proviso does not require the family member to be living with the tenant. The Court emphasized that the main purpose of the proviso is to prevent tenants from claiming protection under Section 20(4) when they have access to alternative accommodation in the same city.

The Court stated, “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.”

The Court also noted, “The main reason behind enacting such proviso is that the tenant, in such circumstances, would not suffer any hardship, if he is asked to vacate the tenanted premises pursuant to eviction decree passed against him on the ground of arrears of rent under Section 20(2)(a) of the Act because he or any member of his family has built house or acquired it and got its vacant possession situated in the same city.”

The Court concluded, “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 of sub-section(4) of Section 20 because his case falls under the proviso to sub-section(4) by 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.”

Key Takeaways

• A tenant cannot avoid eviction under Section 20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, if their son, a family member as defined under Section 3(g), owns a house in the same city.
• The proviso to Section 20(4) applies regardless of whether the family member lives with the tenant or separately.
• The primary purpose of the proviso is to prevent tenants from claiming protection under Section 20(4) when they have access to alternative accommodation in the same city through a family member.

Directions

The Supreme Court granted the appellants three months to vacate the premises, provided they deposit all rent arrears and three months’ rent as damages for use and occupation within two weeks. Failure to comply would allow the respondents to execute the eviction decree immediately.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the proviso to Section 20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, is to be interpreted strictly. The ownership of a residential building by any family member, as defined under Section 3(g) of the Act, in the same city, is sufficient to disentitle a tenant from claiming the benefits of Section 20(4), irrespective of whether the family member resides with the tenant or not. This clarifies the scope of the proviso and reinforces the legislative intent to prevent tenants from misusing the provision when they have access to alternative housing.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the eviction decree against the tenant. The Court concluded that the tenant could not claim the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, because his son, a family member, owned a house in the same city. This decision reinforces the strict interpretation of the proviso to Section 20(4) and clarifies that the availability of alternative accommodation through a family member disqualifies a tenant from the protection offered under this section.

Category

Parent Category: Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972

Child Categories:

• Section 3(g), Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972
• Section 20(2)(a), Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972
• Section 20(4), Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972
• Eviction
• Landlord-Tenant Dispute
• Rent Arrears
• Family Definition

FAQ

Q: What does Section 20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, say?

A: Section 20(4) allows a tenant to avoid eviction for non-payment of rent if they pay all dues at the first hearing. However, this does not apply if the tenant or a family member owns a house in the same city.

Q: If my son owns a house in the same city, can I still claim protection under Section 20(4)?

A: No, according to this Supreme Court judgment, if your son, who is considered a family member under the Act, owns a house in the same city, you cannot claim the benefit of Section 20(4), regardless of whether he lives with you or not.

Q: What is the definition of “family” under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972?

A: The Act defines “family” to include a spouse, male lineal descendants, and certain other relatives normally residing with them.

Q: What happens if I don’t pay the rent arrears and vacate within the given time?

A: If you fail to deposit the rent arrears and three months’ rent as damages within the stipulated time, the landlord can execute the eviction decree immediately.