LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a tenant can be evicted for residing with family members, and the validity of challenging a vacancy order alongside the final allotment order.
CASE TYPE: Rent Control Law
Case Name: Mohd. Inam vs. Sanjay Kumar Singhal & Ors.
Judgment Date: 26 June 2020
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 26 June 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 343
Judges: Navin Sinha, J., B.R. Gavai, J. (authored the judgment)
Can a landlord declare a tenant’s premises vacant simply because the tenant’s family members are also residing there? The Supreme Court of India recently tackled this question, focusing on the rights of tenants under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. This case clarifies the legal position on deemed vacancies and the proper procedure for challenging eviction orders. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Navin Sinha and Justice B.R. Gavai, with Justice Gavai authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The case revolves around a property in Mussoorie where Rashid Ahmed was the original tenant since 1965. In 1998, the respondents, Sanjay Kumar Singhal and others, purchased the property, becoming Rashid Ahmed’s landlords. In 1999, the landlords applied to the Rent Controller, claiming that Rashid Ahmed had illegally sub-let the premises to individuals who were not family members, seeking a declaration of vacancy under Section 16(1)(b) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “U.P. Act, 1972” or “the Act”).
A Rent Control Inspector’s report indicated that Rashid Ahmed was not present during the inspection and that several families, including his son Inam and his family, were residing there. Rashid Ahmed objected, stating that his brother and their families were living with him as tenants. During the proceedings, Rashid Ahmed passed away, and his son, Mohd. Inam, the present appellant, was substituted as the legal heir.
The Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared the premises vacant, stating that the occupants failed to prove they were tenants since 1965. This order was challenged, leading to a series of appeals and revisions.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1965 | Rashid Ahmed becomes the original tenant of the suit premises. |
| 1998 | Sanjay Kumar Singhal & Ors. purchase the property, becoming Rashid Ahmed’s landlords. |
| 10.06.1999 | Landlords apply to the Rent Controller, alleging sub-letting by Rashid Ahmed. |
| 16.08.1999 | Rent Control Inspector submits report noting multiple families residing at the premises. |
| 19.01.2000 | Rashid Ahmed dies, and his son, Mohd. Inam, is substituted as the legal heir. |
| 04.06.2003 | Rent Control and Eviction Officer declares the suit premises vacant. |
| 23.08.2006 | High Court grants liberty to the petitioners to challenge the order dated 4.6.2003 after the final order is passed under Section 16 of the U.P. Act, 1972. |
| 31.05.2007 | Rent Controller and Eviction Officer passes a final order declaring the premises vacant. |
| 05.06.2008 | District Judge, Dehradun, allows the revision, setting aside the vacancy and final orders. |
| 26.10.2017 | High Court of Uttarakhand allows the writ petition filed by the landlords, setting aside the District Judge’s order. |
| 26.06.2020 | Supreme Court allows the appeal, quashing the High Court’s order. |
Course of Proceedings
Initially, the Rent Control and Eviction Officer declared the premises vacant on 4.6.2003. Aggrieved, Mohd. Inam and his cousin, Shabbir Ahmed, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital. The High Court, referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Achal Misra vs. Rama Shanker Singh and others [(2005) 5 SCC 531], allowed the petitioners to challenge the order after the final order of release/allotment was passed under Section 16 of the U.P. Act, 1972.
The Rent Controller then passed a final order on 31.5.2007, declaring the premises vacant in favor of the landlords. Mohd. Inam and Shabbir Ahmed filed a revision before the District Judge, Dehradun, who allowed the revision on 5.6.2008, setting aside the vacancy and final orders. The landlords then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, which was allowed on 26.10.2017. This order was then challenged in the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The core of the dispute lies in the interpretation of Section 16(1)(b) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, which deals with deemed vacancies. The landlords sought to declare the premises vacant under this provision.
Section 18 of the U.P. Act, 1972, outlines the appeal process against orders of allotment or release. It specifies that no appeal lies against an order under Section 16 or Section 19, but an aggrieved person may file a revision to the District Judge within fifteen days. The grounds for revision include:
- ✓ that the District Magistrate has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law;
- ✓ that the District Magistrate has failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him by law;
- ✓ that the District Magistrate acted in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
The Supreme Court also considered the interplay between Section 12 and Section 16 of the U.P. Act, 1972, in determining whether a deemed vacancy had occurred.
Arguments
The landlords argued that Rashid Ahmed had sub-let the premises to persons who were not members of his family, thereby creating a deemed vacancy under Section 16(1)(b) of the U.P. Act, 1972. They relied on the Rent Control Inspector’s report, which indicated multiple families residing at the premises.
The tenant, Mohd. Inam, contended that he and other family members of the late Rashid Ahmed were residing in the premises. He argued that the presence of family members did not constitute sub-letting and therefore, no vacancy could be declared. He further argued that the High Court’s order dated 23.08.2006, had granted liberty to challenge the vacancy order along with the final order.
The District Judge, in his order, referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Harish Tandon vs. Addl. District Magistrate, Allahabad, U.P. and others [(1995) 1 SCC 537], which defined the scope of Section 12(1)(b) regarding deemed vacancy. The District Judge noted that the words “allowed to be occupied” indicate that possession of the building has been given to a person who is not a family member and that it is not attracted when a non-family member resides along with the tenant.
| Submission Category | Landlord’s Submissions | Tenant’s Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Sub-letting | ✓ Rashid Ahmed sub-let the premises to non-family members. ✓ The Rent Control Inspector’s report confirms multiple families residing at the premises, indicating sub-letting. |
✓ The occupants were family members of Rashid Ahmed or his brother. ✓ No evidence was presented to show that any non-family member was occupying the premises in their own right. |
| Vacancy Declaration | ✓ Rashid Ahmed’s actions created a deemed vacancy under Section 16(1)(b) of the U.P. Act, 1972. | ✓ The presence of family members does not constitute sub-letting and therefore, no vacancy can be declared. |
| Procedural Issues | ✓ The revision filed by the tenant against the vacancy order was not maintainable. ✓ The High Court’s order dated 23.08.2006, dismissing the writ petition, had attained finality. |
✓ The High Court’s order dated 23.08.2006, had granted liberty to challenge the vacancy order along with the final order. ✓ The question of vacancy is a jurisdictional fact that can be challenged in the revision against the allotment order. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issues for adjudication:
- Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the revision entertained by the District Judge against the vacancy order dated 4.6.2003 along with the final order of release dated 31.5.2007 was not tenable?
- Whether the District Judge was justified in interfering with the order passed by the Rent Controller and Eviction Officer?
- Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the well-reasoned order passed by the District Judge while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Maintainability of Revision | The High Court erred in holding that the revision was not tenable. | The Supreme Court referred to Achal Misra vs. Rama Shanker Singh and others [(2005) 5 SCC 531], which clarified that a vacancy order can be challenged along with the final order. The High Court had misread the law and the facts. |
| Interference by District Judge | The District Judge was justified in interfering with the Rent Controller’s order. | The Rent Controller’s order was contrary to the law as interpreted in Harish Tandon vs. Addl. District Magistrate, Allahabad, U.P. and others [(1995) 1 SCC 537], and was based on a misreading of the evidence. |
| Interference by High Court | The High Court’s interference under Article 227 was erroneous. | The High Court exceeded its supervisory jurisdiction by acting as a court of appeal and misinterpreting the facts and law. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Tirlok Singh and Co. vs. District Magistrate, Lucknow [(1976) 3 SCC 726] | Supreme Court of India | The court noted that this case held that an order notifying a vacancy does not cause prejudice and that a writ petition against such an order is premature. This view was later disapproved. |
| Ganpat Roy vs. ADM [(1985) 2 SCC 307] | Supreme Court of India | This case disagreed with Tirlok Singh, holding that a vacancy notification does affect the rights of the parties and can be challenged immediately. |
| Achal Misra vs. Rama Shanker Singh and others [(2005) 5 SCC 531] | Supreme Court of India | This case clarified that a vacancy order can be challenged along with the final order of allotment in a revision under Section 18 of the U.P. Act, 1972. This case was heavily relied upon by the court. |
| Moheshur Sing v. Bengal Govt. [(1859) 7 Moo IA 283] | Privy Council | The court cited this case to emphasize that a party is not obligated to appeal every interlocutory order to preserve their right to challenge it later. |
| Sheonoth v. Ramnath [(1865) 10 MIA 413] | Privy Council | The court cited this case to reiterate that a party is not bound to appeal from every interlocutory order, and such orders can be questioned in an appeal from the final decree. |
| Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi [(1960) 3 SCR 590 : AIR 1960 SC 941] | Supreme Court of India | The court cited this case to reaffirm the principle that an interlocutory order can be challenged in an appeal from a final decree or order. |
| Amar Chand Butail v. Union of India [AIR 1964 SC 1658] | Supreme Court of India | The court cited this case to reiterate the principle that an interlocutory order can be challenged in an appeal from a final decree or order. |
| Harish Tandon vs. Addl. District Magistrate, Allahabad, U.P. and others [(1995) 1 SCC 537] | Supreme Court of India | This case was used to define the scope of Section 12(1)(b) of the U.P. Act, 1972, regarding deemed vacancy and the meaning of “allowed to be occupied”. |
| Sarla Ahuja vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. [(1998) 8 SCC 119] | Supreme Court of India | This case was used to define the scope of revisional powers. |
| Ram Narain Arora vs. Asha Rani and others [(1999) 1 SCC 141] | Supreme Court of India | This case was used to define the scope of revisional powers. |
| Harshavardhan Chokkani vs. Bhupendra N. Patel and others [(2002) 3 SCC 626] | Supreme Court of India | This case was used to define the scope of revisional powers. |
| Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Dilbahar Singh [(2014) 9 SCC 78] | Supreme Court of India | This case was used to define the scope of revisional powers. |
| Narayani Devi vs. Mahendra Kr. Tripathi and others [(1999) 9 SCC 612] | Supreme Court of India | The High Court relied on this case, but the Supreme Court noted that it was a one-paragraph order and did not outweigh the precedent set in Achal Misra. |
| Section 16(1)(b), U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 | U.P. State Legislature | This provision deals with the conditions for declaring a deemed vacancy. |
| Section 18, U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 | U.P. State Legislature | This provision outlines the appeal process against orders of allotment or release. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions and authorities to conclude that the High Court had erred in its judgment. The Court emphasized that the District Judge’s order was justified and that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had misread the law and the facts, particularly regarding the maintainability of the revision and the interpretation of Section 12(1)(b) of the U.P. Act, 1972.
| Submission Category | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Sub-letting | The Court held that the presence of family members does not constitute sub-letting and that the Rent Controller’s finding was contrary to law and evidence. |
| Vacancy Declaration | The Court held that the vacancy declaration was not valid as the premises were not occupied by any non-family member in their own right. |
| Procedural Issues | The Court held that the revision was maintainable and that the High Court’s order dated 23.08.2006 had specifically granted liberty to challenge the vacancy order along with the final order. |
The following table demonstrates how each authority was viewed by the court:
| Authority | How it was Viewed by the Court |
|---|---|
| Tirlok Singh and Co. vs. District Magistrate, Lucknow [(1976) 3 SCC 726] | The Court acknowledged the ruling but noted that it was disapproved by a larger bench. |
| Ganpat Roy vs. ADM [(1985) 2 SCC 307] | The Court used this case to emphasize that a vacancy notification does affect the rights of the parties and can be challenged immediately. |
| Achal Misra vs. Rama Shanker Singh and others [(2005) 5 SCC 531] | The Court heavily relied on this case to clarify that a vacancy order can be challenged along with the final order of allotment. |
| Moheshur Sing v. Bengal Govt. [(1859) 7 Moo IA 283] | The Court used this case to support the view that a party is not obligated to appeal every interlocutory order. |
| Sheonoth v. Ramnath [(1865) 10 MIA 413] | The Court used this case to support the view that a party is not obligated to appeal every interlocutory order. |
| Satyadhyan Ghosal v. Deorajin Debi [(1960) 3 SCR 590 : AIR 1960 SC 941] | The Court used this case to support the view that a party is not obligated to appeal every interlocutory order. |
| Amar Chand Butail v. Union of India [AIR 1964 SC 1658] | The Court used this case to support the view that a party is not obligated to appeal every interlocutory order. |
| Harish Tandon vs. Addl. District Magistrate, Allahabad, U.P. and others [(1995) 1 SCC 537] | The Court used this case to interpret the words “allowed to be occupied” in Section 12 of the U.P. Act, 1972. |
| Sarla Ahuja vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. [(1998) 8 SCC 119] | The Court used this case to define the scope of revisional powers. |
| Ram Narain Arora vs. Asha Rani and others [(1999) 1 SCC 141] | The Court used this case to define the scope of revisional powers. |
| Harshavardhan Chokkani vs. Bhupendra N. Patel and others [(2002) 3 SCC 626] | The Court used this case to define the scope of revisional powers. |
| Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Dilbahar Singh [(2014) 9 SCC 78] | The Court used this case to define the scope of revisional powers. |
| Narayani Devi vs. Mahendra Kr. Tripathi and others [(1999) 9 SCC 612] | The Court noted that the High Court had erred in relying on this case, as it was a one-paragraph order and did not outweigh the precedent set in Achal Misra. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the following factors:
- ✓ The interpretation of the phrase “allowed to be occupied” in Section 12(1)(b) of the U.P. Act, 1972, as clarified in Harish Tandon.
- ✓ The principle that a party is not bound to challenge every interlocutory order, as established in Achal Misra.
- ✓ The limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, as defined in various cases, including Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Dilbahar Singh.
- ✓ The need to ensure that subordinate tribunals act within their jurisdiction and obey the law, as highlighted in the cases related to Article 227 of the Constitution.
The Court emphasized that the Rent Controller’s order was contrary to the law and evidence, and that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by acting as a court of appeal.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Upholding Tenant’s Rights | 40% |
| Procedural Correctness | 30% |
| Adherence to Precedent | 20% |
| Revisional Jurisdiction | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal principles and precedents, with a lesser emphasis on the specific facts of the case. This indicates a strong focus on ensuring the correct application of law and procedure.
Logical Reasoning
The Supreme Court’s logical reasoning for each issue can be represented as follows:
Key Takeaways
- ✓ A tenant cannot be evicted solely on the grounds that their family members are residing with them.
- ✓ A vacancy order can be challenged along with the final order of allotment in a revision under Section 18 of the U.P. Act, 1972.
- ✓ Revisional courts have limited jurisdiction and cannot act as appellate courts.
- ✓ High Courts should exercise their supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution sparingly and only to keep subordinate tribunals within their authority.
This judgment reinforces the rights of tenants and clarifies the procedures for challenging eviction orders. It also serves as a reminder to lower courts to adhere to established legal principles and precedents.
Directions
The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the order of the High Court dated 26.10.2017.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a tenant cannot be deemed to have created a vacancy under Section 12(1)(b) of the U.P. Act, 1972, merely because family members are residing with them. The judgment also clarifies that a vacancy order can be challenged along with the final order in a revision under Section 18 of the U.P. Act, 1972. This is consistent with the principles laid down in Achal Misra vs. Rama Shanker Singh and others [(2005) 5 SCC 531].
This judgment reinforces the principles laid down in Achal Misra and clarifies the scope of revisional powers. Italso emphasizes the limited scope of High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.