Supreme Court Upholds Tenant Rights Under UP Rent Act: Geeta Gupta vs. Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi (20 September 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 20 September 2021
Citation: [Not provided in the source]
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka
Can a person be considered a legal tenant even if their tenancy agreement was not directly with the property owner? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning property rights in Uttar Pradesh. This case revolves around a dispute over tenancy and the application of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The core issue is whether a tenant, inducted by a power of attorney holder of the original owner, can be considered a legal tenant under the Act, especially when the original owner did not object to the tenancy. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka, with the opinion authored by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka.

Case Background

The appellant, Geeta Gupta, claimed ownership of premises No. 74/13, Collectorganj, Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, which she acquired through a sale deed dated 13th March, 1994. The property included two Gaddis, two godowns, and a tin shed. The appellant’s vendors had previously given the disputed premises to Dhruv Narayan Tripathi as a tenant. The second respondent, Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi, applied for allotment of the disputed premises, claiming it had fallen vacant under Section 12(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”).

Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi claimed that he was inducted as a tenant by Dhruv Narayan Tripathi in November 1975 at a monthly rent of Rs. 500. The Additional City Magistrate held that Dwivedi was a tenant based on an agreement dated 15th November, 1975, and that the original owners had not objected to Tripathi’s actions. The Magistrate concluded that the premises were not vacant under Section 12(4) of the said Act. Geeta Gupta filed a writ petition against this order, which was rejected by the Allahabad High Court.

Timeline

Legal Framework

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

• Section 12(1)(b) of the said Act: This section specifies that a tenant is deemed to have ceased to occupy a building if they allow someone who is not a family member to occupy it.
  
  “a tenant of a building shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building or a part thereof if he has allowed it to be occupied by any person who is not a member of his family.”
• Section 12(2) of the said Act: This section states that in non-residential buildings, a tenant who admits a non-family member as a partner is deemed to have ceased to occupy the building.
  
  “in case of non-residential buildings, where a tenant carrying on business in the building admits a person who is not a member of his family as a partner, the tenant shall be deemed to have ceased to occupy the building.”
• Section 12(4) of the said Act: This section states that a building or part of it is deemed vacant if the landlord or tenant has ceased to occupy it as defined in sub-sections (1) or (2) of Section 12.
  
  “any building or a part of which landlord or tenant has ceased to occupy within the meaning of sub-sections (1) or (2) of Section 12 shall be deemed to be vacant.”
• Section 16(1)(a) of the said Act: This section empowers the District Magistrate to require a landlord to let a vacant building to a specified person.
  
  “the District Magistrate is empowered to require any landlord to let any building which has fallen vacant to any person specified in the order.”
• Section 14 of the said Act: This crucial section regularizes the occupation of existing tenants. It states that a tenant in occupation of a building with the landlord’s consent before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1976 (i.e., before 5th July, 1976), is deemed to be an authorized tenant.
  
  “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 30(1) of the said Act: This section allows a tenant to deposit rent in the court if the landlord refuses to accept it.
• Section 30(3) of the said Act: This section allows the landlord to withdraw the rent amount deposited by the tenant.
• Section 20 of the said Act: This section deals with the grounds for eviction of a tenant.
• Section 21 of the said Act: This section deals with the procedure for eviction of a tenant.

Arguments

The appellant, Geeta Gupta, argued that Dhruv Narayan Tripathi had no authority to induct Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi as a tenant on behalf of her predecessors-in-title. She claimed that Tripathi was himself a tenant and that the premises were vacant on 5th July, 1976. She also argued that she had not received any income from the disputed premises since purchasing the property in 1994 and that it would be unfair to force her to file an eviction suit 27 years later. The appellant relied on the following cases:

• Achal Misra v. Rama Shanker Singh & Ors. [1(2005) 5 SCC 531]: The appellant cited this case to argue that an order notifying vacancy under Section 12 of the said Act can be challenged by filing a writ petition.
• Ram Murti Devi v. Pushpa Devi & Ors. [2(2017) 15 SCC 230]: The appellant cited this case to argue that it deals with the issue of unlawful subletting.
• Harish Tandon v. Addl. District Magistrate, Allahabad, U.P. & Ors. [3(1995) 1 SCC 537]: The appellant cited this case to argue that it has bearing on the controversy in this appeal.

The first respondent, Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi, contended that he had been in possession of the disputed premises since 1975 and had been paying rent. He presented an agreement dated 15th November, 1975, showing his induction as a tenant by Dhruv Narayan Tripathi, who was acting as a power of attorney holder and manager of the original owners. Dwivedi also stated that he had been depositing rent in the Court of Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Kanpur Nagar, under Section 30(1) of the said Act.

The first respondent argued that the original owners never objected to Dhruv Narayan Tripathi acting as their attorney or manager and never filed a suit for eviction. He submitted that he was a tenant in possession before 5th July, 1976, and thus, was protected under Section 14 of the said Act.

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, was a tenant in occupation of the disputed premises 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, and thus, deemed to be an authorized tenant under Section 14 of the said Act.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Additional City Magistrate and the High Court, ruling in favor of the first respondent, Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi. The court found that Dwivedi was a tenant in possession with the consent of the original owners before 5th July, 1976, and therefore, was a deemed tenant under Section 14 of the said Act.

The court also directed the first respondent to deposit all arrears of rent up to 31st August, 2021, within six weeks and to continue to deposit rent regularly. The court further stated that if the appellant files eviction proceedings, the concerned authority or court should give priority to the disposal of such proceedings.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Achal Misra v. Rama Shanker Singh & Ors. [1(2005) 5 SCC 531]: The Court held that this case had no bearing on the present case.
• Ram Murti Devi v. Pushpa Devi & Ors. [2(2017) 15 SCC 230]: The Court held that this case had no bearing on the present case.
• Harish Tandon v. Addl. District Magistrate, Allahabad, U.P. & Ors. [3(1995) 1 SCC 537]: The Court held that this case had no bearing on the present case.
• Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972: The Court considered this section for the definition of deemed vacancy, but held it was not applicable in this case.
• Section 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972: The Court relied on this section to hold that the first respondent was a deemed tenant.
• Section 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972: The Court referred to this section to understand the powers of the District Magistrate.
• Section 30 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972: The Court referred to this section to understand the procedure for deposit and withdrawal of rent.
• Section 20 and 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972: The Court referred to these sections to state that the appellant can take recourse to it for eviction of the respondent.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the factual finding that the first respondent was in possession of the disputed premises as a tenant with the consent of the original owners before 5th July, 1976. This was supported by the agreement dated 15th November, 1975, and the lack of any objection from the original owners. The Court emphasized the importance of Section 14 of the said Act, which protects tenants who were in possession with the consent of the landlord before the specified date. The Court also took into account the fact that the first respondent had been depositing rent in the court, indicating his intention to continue the tenancy.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the factual matrix of the case, particularly the undisputed possession of the first respondent as a tenant since 1975 and the lack of objection from the original owners. The legal aspect, primarily the interpretation of Section 14 of the said Act, was also crucial in determining the outcome.

The court did not consider any alternative interpretations of Section 14 of the said Act. The court’s decision was based on the plain reading of the section and the factual matrix of the case.

The Supreme Court held that the first respondent was a deemed tenant by virtue of Section 14 of the said Act. The court stated:

“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.”

The court further stated that if the appellant wants to evict the first respondent, she will have to take recourse to Section 20 or 21 of the said Act:

“Therefore, if the appellant wants the first respondent to be evicted, she will have to take recourse to section 20 of the said Act. Depending upon the circumstances, she has also an option to take recourse to section 21 of the said Act.”

The court also directed the first respondent to deposit all arrears of rent:

“We direct the first respondent to deposit all the arrears of rent, if any, up to 31st August, 2021 within a period of six weeks from today and thereafter, continue to regularly deposit the rent in the aforesaid proceedings.”

Key Takeaways

• Tenants who were 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 cannot evict such tenants without following the due process of law under Sections 20 and 21 of the said Act.
• Tenants are required to pay rent regularly, and if they fail to do so, they may be subject to eviction proceedings.
• If a landlord files eviction proceedings against a deemed tenant, the concerned authority or court should give priority to the disposal of such proceedings.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the first respondent to:

• Deposit all arrears of rent, if any, up to 31st August, 2021, within six weeks from the date of the judgment.
• Continue to deposit the rent regularly in the proceedings before the Court of Civil Judge, (Junior Division) at Kanpur Nagar.

The Supreme Court also directed that if eviction proceedings are filed by the appellant, the concerned authority or the Court shall give priority to the disposal of the eviction proceedings.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a tenant who was in possession of a property with the consent of the landlord before 5th July, 1976, is deemed to be an authorized tenant under Section 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. This judgment reaffirms the protection granted to tenants under the said Act and clarifies that even if the original tenancy agreement was not directly with the property owner, the tenant can still be considered a legal tenant if the original owner did not object to the tenancy before the specified date. This case does not overrule any previous positions of law but rather clarifies the interpretation of Section 14 of the said Act.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by Geeta Gupta, upholding the decisions of the lower courts. The Court held 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 judgment reinforces the protection given to tenants under the Act and clarifies the conditions under which a person can be considered a deemed tenant.