LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a tenant inducted by a person claiming to be a power of attorney holder, without explicit objection from the original owners before a specific date, can be considered a lawful tenant under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. CASE TYPE: Civil Law, Property Law, Tenancy Law Case Name: Geeta Gupta vs. Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 20 September 2021
Date of the Judgment: 20 September 2021
Citation: 2021 INSC 648
Judges: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka
Can a tenant, inducted by an alleged power of attorney holder, gain legal tenancy if the original owners do not object before a specific date? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case concerning property rights and tenancy laws in Uttar Pradesh. The core issue revolved around whether a tenant, inducted by a person claiming to be a power of attorney holder, could be considered a lawful tenant under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, if the original owners did not object to the tenancy before a certain date. This judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, with Justice Abhay S. Oka authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The case revolves around a property dispute in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. The appellant, Geeta Gupta, claimed ownership of premises No. 74/13, Collectorganj, Kanpur Nagar, which she acquired through a sale deed dated 13th March 1994. The property included two ‘gaddis’ (shops), two godowns, and a tin shed. The appellant’s vendors had previously rented these premises to Dhruv Narayan Tripathi.
The second respondent, Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi, applied for allotment of the disputed premises, claiming that they had become vacant under Section 12(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Dwivedi asserted that he had been a tenant since November 1975, inducted by Dhruv Narayan Tripathi, who claimed to be the power of attorney holder and manager of the original owners. The Additional City Magistrate ruled in favor of Dwivedi, stating that he was a lawful tenant as the original owners never objected to Tripathi’s actions. The Allahabad High Court upheld this decision, leading to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1975 (November) | Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi claims to have been inducted as a tenant by Dhruv Narayan Tripathi. |
| 15th November 1975 | Agreement between Dhruv Narayan Tripathi and Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi |
| 5th July 1976 | Commencement date of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1976. |
| 13th March 1994 | Geeta Gupta purchases the disputed premises. |
| 20th May 1995 | Inspection report submitted to the District Magistrate, noting Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi’s business in the disputed premises. |
| 1997 | Geeta Gupta files a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court. |
| 9th October 2009 | Allahabad High Court rejects Geeta Gupta’s writ petition. |
| 2011 | Geeta Gupta files an appeal before the Supreme Court. |
| 31st August 2021 | Cut-off date for the deposit of arrears of rent by the first respondent as per the Supreme Court’s order. |
| 20th September 2021 | Supreme Court delivers its judgment. |
Course of Proceedings
The Additional City Magistrate, exercising powers under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, ruled that Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi was a tenant of the disputed premises based on an agreement dated 15th November 1975. The Magistrate noted that the original owners had not objected to Dhruv Narayan Tripathi’s actions. Geeta Gupta filed a writ petition against this order in the Allahabad High Court, which was subsequently rejected. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, specifically:
- Section 12: This section defines the concept of deemed vacancy of a building. Sub-section (1)(b) states that a tenant is deemed to have ceased to occupy the building if they allow someone not a family member to occupy it. Sub-section (4) states that a building is deemed vacant if the landlord or tenant ceases to occupy it under sub-sections (1) or (2).
- Section 16(1)(a): This section empowers the District Magistrate to require a landlord to let a vacant building to a specified person.
- Section 14: This crucial section states:
“14. Regularisation or 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 Section 2-A) or 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 building].”
This section provides that any tenant in occupation of a building with the landlord’s consent before the commencement of the 1976 Amendment Act (5th July 1976) is deemed an authorized tenant.
Arguments
Appellant (Geeta Gupta)’s Submissions:
- Dhruv Narayan Tripathi had no authority to induct Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi as a tenant on behalf of the original owners.
- Tripathi was himself a tenant, not an authorized agent of the owners.
- The premises were vacant on 5th July 1976.
- The appellant has not received any income from the disputed premises since purchasing the property in 1994.
- It would be unjust to force the appellant to file an eviction suit 27 years after purchasing the property.
Respondent (Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi)’s Submissions:
- Dwivedi has been in possession of the premises since 1975 and has been paying rent.
- The agreement dated 15th November 1975, shows that he was inducted as a tenant by Dhruv Narayan Tripathi, who was acting as a power of attorney holder and manager of the owners.
- Dwivedi has been regularly depositing rent in the Court of Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Kanpur Nagar under Section 30(1) of the said Act.
Analysis of Arguments: The appellant argued that the tenant was inducted without the express consent of the original owners, while the respondent relied on the agreement and the lack of objection from the original owners before 5th July 1976, to claim tenancy under Section 14 of the Act. The respondent also relied on the fact that the rent was being deposited in the court.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Claim: Lack of Authority to Induct Tenant |
|
| Appellant’s Claim: Vacancy of Premises |
|
| Appellant’s Claim: Financial Loss |
|
| Appellant’s Claim: Unjust to File Eviction Suit |
|
| Respondent’s Claim: Lawful Tenancy |
|
| Respondent’s Claim: Compliance with Law |
|
Innovativeness of the Argument: The respondent’s argument that the lack of objection from the original owners before 5th July 1976, coupled with the agreement, is sufficient to establish tenancy under Section 14 of the Act, is a key point. The appellant’s argument that it was unjust to file an eviction suit after 27 years was also innovative.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the Court addressed was:
- Whether the first respondent, Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi, could be considered a lawful tenant under Section 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, given that he was inducted by a person claiming to be a power of attorney holder, and the original owners did not object to the tenancy before 5th July 1976.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision and Reasoning |
|---|---|
| Whether the first respondent could be considered a lawful tenant under Section 14 of the Act | The Court held that the first respondent was a lawful tenant. The Court noted that the first respondent was inducted as a tenant before 5th July 1976, and the original owners never objected to it. The Court relied on Section 14 of the Act, which states that a tenant in occupation of a building with the consent of the landlord immediately before the commencement of the 1976 Amendment Act is deemed to be an authorized tenant. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following legal provisions:
- Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972: Defines deemed vacancy of buildings.
- Section 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972: Regularizes the occupation of existing tenants.
“14. Regularisation or 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 Section 2-A) or 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 building].”
- Section 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972: Empowers the District Magistrate to require a landlord to let a vacant building.
- Section 30 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972: Deals with the deposit of rent by tenants.
The Court also considered the following cases, but found them not applicable to the facts of the present case:
- Achal Misra v. Rama Shanker Singh & Ors. [(2005) 5 SCC 531]: This case discussed challenging vacancy orders under Section 12 of the Act.
- Ram Murti Devi v. Pushpa Devi & Ors. [(2017) 15 SCC 230]: This case dealt with unlawful subletting.
- Harish Tandon v. Addl. District Magistrate, Allahabad, U.P. & Ors. [(1995) 1 SCC 537]: This case was not relevant to the issues in the present appeal.
| Authority | How Considered by the Court |
|---|---|
| Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 | Explained the concept of deemed vacancy, which was the basis of the application for allotment. |
| Section 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 | The Court relied on this section to conclude that the first respondent was a deemed tenant. |
| Section 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 | Explained the power of the District Magistrate to require a landlord to let a vacant building. |
| Section 30 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 | Mentioned in the context of the first respondent depositing the rent in the court. |
| Achal Misra v. Rama Shanker Singh & Ors. [(2005) 5 SCC 531] (Supreme Court of India) | Found not applicable to the facts of the case. |
| Ram Murti Devi v. Pushpa Devi & Ors. [(2017) 15 SCC 230] (Supreme Court of India) | Found not applicable as it dealt with unlawful subletting. |
| Harish Tandon v. Addl. District Magistrate, Allahabad, U.P. & Ors. [(1995) 1 SCC 537] (Supreme Court of India) | Found not applicable to the facts of the case. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s claim that Dhruv Narayan Tripathi had no authority to induct the tenant. | The Court did not find merit in this submission as the original owners did not object to the tenancy before 5th July 1976. |
| Appellant’s claim that the premises were vacant on 5th July 1976. | The Court rejected this submission based on the finding that the respondent was in possession with the consent of the original owners before 5th July 1976. |
| Respondent’s claim that he was a lawful tenant under Section 14 of the Act. | The Court upheld this claim, stating that the respondent was in possession with the consent of the original owners before 5th July 1976, making him a deemed tenant under Section 14. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court relied heavily on Section 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972* to determine that the first respondent was a deemed tenant. The court reasoned that since the first respondent was in possession of the disputed premises with the consent of the original owners before 5th July 1976, he was a deemed tenant under the said provision.
- The Court did not rely on Achal Misra v. Rama Shanker Singh & Ors. [(2005) 5 SCC 531]*, Ram Murti Devi v. Pushpa Devi & Ors. [(2017) 15 SCC 230]* and Harish Tandon v. Addl. District Magistrate, Allahabad, U.P. & Ors. [(1995) 1 SCC 537]* as they were not applicable to the facts of the case.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation of Section 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The Court emphasized the fact that the first respondent was in possession of the disputed premises with the consent of the original owners before the commencement of the 1976 Amendment Act. This, coupled with the lack of objection from the original owners, led the Court to conclude that the first respondent was a deemed tenant under Section 14. The Court also considered the fact that the first respondent had been depositing rent in court, indicating his continuous claim as a tenant.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Emphasis on the consent of the original owners before 5th July 1976 | 40% |
| Importance of Section 14 of the Act | 30% |
| Rejection of the appellant’s argument regarding lack of authority of Dhruv Narayan Tripathi | 15% |
| Consideration of the respondent’s continuous possession and payment of rent | 15% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Logical Reasoning:
The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that Dhruv Narayan Tripathi lacked the authority to induct the tenant because the original owners did not object to the tenancy before 5th July 1976. The Court also considered the fact that the respondent had been depositing rent in the court, indicating his continuous claim as a tenant. The Court held that the first respondent was a deemed tenant under Section 14 of the Act. The Court also noted that if the appellant wanted to evict the first respondent, she would have to take recourse to Section 20 or 21 of the said Act.
The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:
- The first respondent was in possession of the disputed premises before 5th July 1976.
- The original owners did not object to the first respondent’s tenancy before 5th July 1976.
- The first respondent was inducted by Dhruv Narayan Tripathi, who claimed to be the power of attorney holder and manager of the owners.
- The first respondent has been depositing rent in the court, indicating his continuous claim as a tenant.
The Court quoted the following from the judgment:
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
There was no majority or minority opinion in this case.
The Court’s reasoning focused on the interpretation of Section 14 of the Act, which regularizes the occupation of existing tenants. The Court applied this provision to the facts of the case, concluding that the first respondent was a deemed tenant. The Court also considered the continuous possession of the tenant and the payment of rent, which further supported the conclusion.
The decision implies that the lack of objection from the landlord before 5th July 1976, is crucial in determining the tenancy of a person inducted by a power of attorney holder. It also implies that the tenant has to be in continuous possession of the property and should be paying rent.
Key Takeaways
- Tenants in possession of a property with the consent of the landlord before 5th July 1976, are deemed to be authorized tenants under Section 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.
- Landlords must object to a tenancy before 5th July 1976, to challenge the legality of a tenancy.
- Continuous possession and payment of rent are important factors in determining tenancy rights.
- If a landlord wants to evict a deemed tenant, they must take recourse to Section 20 or 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the first respondent to deposit all arrears of rent, if any, up to 31st August, 2021, within six weeks and to continue to deposit rent regularly in the proceedings before the Civil Judge, (Junior Division) at Kanpur Nagar. The Court also directed that if eviction proceedings are filed, the concerned authority or court should give priority to the disposal of such proceedings.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that under Section 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, a tenant who was in possession of a building with the consent of the landlord before 5th July 1976, is deemed to be an authorized tenant. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Section 14 and emphasizes the importance of the landlord’s consent before the specified date. There is no change in the previous position of law, but it clarifies the interpretation of Section 14.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Allahabad High Court. The Court ruled that Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi was a deemed tenant under Section 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, as he was in possession of the disputed premises with the consent of the original owners before 5th July 1976. The Court directed the first respondent to pay all arrears of rent and continue to deposit rent regularly. The judgment emphasizes the importance of the landlord’s consent and the need for objections to be raised before the specified date to challenge the legality of a tenancy.