Supreme Court Upholds Eviction Despite Defective Notice: Mahesh Kumar Agarwal vs. Naresh Chandra (2021)

Date of the Judgment: December 08, 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 737

Judges: Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Can a tenant waive their right to a mandatory six-month notice period before being evicted? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The core issue was whether a landlord could proceed with eviction despite not providing a full six-month notice, and whether the tenant’s conduct could be interpreted as a waiver of this right. The Supreme Court, in this case, held that the tenant had waived his right to a six-month notice period. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha.

Case Background

The case revolves around a property purchased by Mahesh Kumar Agarwal on January 4, 1977. Agarwal sought to evict his tenants, the respondents, under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. He sent a legal notice on December 22, 2007, asking the tenants to vacate within 30 days. The tenants replied on February 22, 2008, without raising any objections related to the notice period. The eviction application was filed on November 20, 2008. The Rent Controller ordered eviction on May 16, 2013, which was upheld by the appellate authority on July 21, 2016. However, the High Court reversed these decisions, stating that the landlord had not given the mandatory six-month notice before filing the eviction application.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Rent Controller initially ordered the eviction of the tenants on May 16, 2013. The appellate authority upheld this decision on July 21, 2016. However, the High Court overturned these orders in a writ petition, citing the landlord’s failure to provide a six-month notice as required under the first proviso of Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.

Legal Framework

The case is governed by Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Specifically, the first proviso to Section 21(1)(a) states:

“Provided that where the building was in the occupation of a tenant since before its purchase by the landlord, such purchase being made after the commencement of this Act, no application shall be entertained on the grounds, mentioned in clause (a), unless a period of three years has elapsed since the date of such purchase and the landlord has given a notice in that behalf to the tenant not less than six months before such application, and such notice may be given even before the expiration of the aforesaid period of three years:”

This proviso mandates that a landlord who purchases a tenanted property after the commencement of the Act must wait three years before applying for eviction on the grounds of personal necessity. Additionally, the landlord must give the tenant at least six months’ notice before filing the eviction application. The second proviso of Section 21 deals with compensation to be paid to the tenant in case of eviction from non-residential premises.

The second proviso to Section 21 states:

“Provided further that if any application under clause (a) is made in respect of any building let out exclusively for non-residential purposes, the prescribed authority while making the order of eviction shall, after considering all relevant facts of the case, award against the landlord to the tenant an amount not exceeding two years’ rent as compensation and may, subject to rules, impose such other conditions as it thinks fit.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that while the initial notice dated December 22, 2007, asked the tenant to vacate within 30 days, the eviction application was filed after more than six months, on November 20, 2008.
• The appellant contended that even if the notice was defective, the tenant had waived their right to object by not raising it in the reply notice, written statement, or the first appeal.
• The appellant relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Martin & Harris Ltd. v. VIth Additional Distt. Judge [(1998) 1 SCC 732] to support the argument that the tenant had waived his right to a six-month notice.

Amicus Curiae’s Arguments:

• The Amicus Curiae referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Gopal Krishan Verma v. Tahir (Civil Appeal No. 7896-7897 of 2015), which held that a notice of 30 days does not satisfy the requirement of a six-month notice under the proviso to Section 21(1) of the Act.
• The Amicus Curiae pointed out that the landlord in the case of Gopal Krishan Verma v. Tahir (Civil Appeal No. 7896-7897 of 2015), had persisted with the eviction proceedings despite being alerted to the defect in the notice.
• The Amicus Curiae also highlighted the mandatory compensation order under the second proviso of Section 21 of the Act.

[TABLE] of Submissions:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the tenant had waived their right to a six-month notice period as required under the first proviso of Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed Martin & Harris Ltd. v. VIth Additional Distt. Judge [(1998) 1 SCC 732], holding that the tenant’s conduct amounted to a waiver of the right to a six-month notice.
• The Supreme Court distinguished Gopal Krishan Verma v. Tahir (Civil Appeal No. 7896-7897 of 2015), stating that the facts were different as the tenant in that case had raised the objection in the reply notice.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle of waiver, as established in Martin & Harris Ltd. v. VIth Additional Distt. Judge [(1998) 1 SCC 732]. The Court emphasized that the tenant did not raise any objection to the defective notice in his reply, written statement, or first appeal. This consistent failure to object led the Court to conclude that the tenant had waived his right to the six-month notice period. The Court also took into account the fact that the eviction application was filed after six months from the date of the notice, although the notice itself was defective. The Court was also influenced by the fact that the property was a non-residential property and the second proviso of Section 21 of the Act required the landlord to pay compensation.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the notice was defective. However, the Court decided that the tenant had waived the right to object to the defective notice. The Court also considered the second proviso of Section 21 of the Act and ordered compensation to be paid to the tenant.

The court quoted from Martin & Harris Ltd. v. VIth Additional Distt. Judge [(1998) 1 SCC 732]:

“…if the prohibition imposed by the statute is with a view to affording protection to a party, such protection can be waived by the party. He may avail of it or he may not avail of it as he may choose.”

“…the respondent-landlord by the said conduct of the appellant irretrievably changed his position and would get prejudiced if such a contention is entertained at such a late stage as was tried to be done before the High Court after both the courts had concurrently held on facts that the respondent-plaintiff had proved his case on merits.”

The court also noted:

“In this case, admittedly, a building was let out exclusively for non-residential purposes.”

Key Takeaways

• A tenant can waive their right to a six-month notice period if they fail to raise the objection at the earliest opportunity.
• Even if a notice is defective, the subsequent conduct of the tenant can be interpreted as a waiver of their rights.
• In cases of eviction from non-residential premises, the landlord is liable to pay compensation to the tenant.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 30,000 to the respondents as compensation within two months, to be deposited in the appropriate court within one month. The respondents were allowed to withdraw the deposited amount.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that a tenant can waive their right to a six-month notice period under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, if they fail to raise the objection at the earliest opportunity. This judgment reinforces the principle of waiver as established in Martin & Harris Ltd. v. VIth Additional Distt. Judge [(1998) 1 SCC 732], and clarifies that the conduct of the tenant can be interpreted as a waiver of their rights. The Court also clarified that in cases of non-residential premises, compensation is mandatory.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order. The Court held that the tenant had waived their right to a six-month notice period by not raising the objection in the reply notice, written statement, or first appeal. The Court also ordered the landlord to pay Rs. 30,000 as compensation to the tenants as the premises were non-residential in nature. This judgment clarifies that the procedural requirements for eviction under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, can be waived by the tenant’s conduct.

Category

Parent Category: U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972

Child Categories:

• Section 21, U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972
• Eviction Law
• Waiver
• Landlord and Tenant
• Notice Period
• Compensation

FAQ

Q: What is the mandatory notice period for eviction under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972?

A: The Act requires a landlord to give a tenant at least six months’ notice before filing an eviction application, if the property was purchased by the landlord after the commencement of the Act.

Q: Can a tenant waive their right to a six-month notice period?

A: Yes, a tenant can waive their right to a six-month notice period by not raising the objection at the earliest opportunity.

Q: What happens if the notice is defective?

A: Even if the notice is defective, the tenant’s conduct, such as not objecting to it in a timely manner, can be interpreted as a waiver of their right to a valid notice.

Q: Is compensation mandatory in all eviction cases?

A: No, compensation is mandatory when the application for eviction is made in respect of any building let out exclusively for non-residential purposes.

Q: What was the Supreme Court’s decision in this case?

A: The Supreme Court held that the tenant had waived his right to a six-month notice period and ordered the landlord to pay Rs. 30,000 as compensation to the tenants.