Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
PETITIONER:
CHETAR SEN JAIN
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE III, DEHRADUN AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT07/08/1992
BENCH:
THOMMEN, T.K. (J)
BENCH:
THOMMEN, T.K. (J)
BHARUCHA S.P. (J)
CITATION:
1992 AIR 1991 1992 SCR (3) 769
1992 SCC (3) 760 JT 1992 (4) 450
1992 SCALE (2)151
ACT:
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and
Eviction) Act, 1972:
Section-14-Regularisation of Tenancy-Tenant in
occupation of premises with the consent of the landlord
before the Act came into force-No suit or other proceedings
for eviction pending at the time of coming into force of
Amending Act of 1976-Whether tenant entitled to benefit of
regularisation.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant-tenant took on lease the premises
belonging to the respondent in 1958 for residential
purposes. He shifted his residence in 1968, but continued
to be in possession of the same till 1982 under a fresh
lease agreed upon between him and the landlord for the
purpose of storing goods.
In 1982 one ‘D’ filed an application for allotment of
the premises in terms of Section 12(3) of the U.P. Urban
Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act,
1972 alleging that a "deemed vacancy" had arisen by reason
of the tenant constructing a residential building of his own
and shifting therein. The Rent Court declared the premises
to be vacant, but the litigation went upto the High Court,
which held that the question of vacancy could be decided at
the time of allotment of the premises or the release of the
same to the landlord.
Thereafter, in 1984 the premises were released to the
landlord by the order of the Rent Court but in revision the
District Court remanded the case to the Rent Court, which
held that the tenant was in occupation of the premises with
the consent of the landlord and no vacancy had, therefore,
occurred. In revision, the Additional District Judge also
held that the premises having been at all material times in
the possession of the tenant, no vacancy had occurred.
However, on a Writ Petition filed by the landlord, the High
Court reversed the concurrent findings and remanded the case
to the District Court for fresh findings. Hence, the appeal
by special leave
770
by the tenant.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
On behalf of the tenant/appellant it was contended that
High Court was wrong in remanding the case for fresh
findings and that section 14 of the Act as amended by Act 28
of 1976, dealing with the regularisation of occupation of
existing tenants was attracted and all defects, if any, in
the occupation of the premises by the appellant were cured,
and the landlord was not entitled to seek recovery of the
premises.
Allowing the appeal, this Court,
HELD: 1.1 Section 14 of the U.P. Urban Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 begins
with a non obstante clause. This clause leaves no doubt
that a tenant who has been in occupation of the premises
with the consent of the landlord immediately before the
Amending Act of 1976 came into force and against whom no
case for eviction was pending on that day, is deemed to be
an authorised tenant of the premises. His occupation is
thus statutorily regularised. Such a tenant has security of
tenure, subject, of course, to the provisions of Chapter IV
of the Act dealing with eviction of tenants on specified
grounds. [773G-H, 774 A-F]
1.2. In the instant case, the tenant has been in
occupation of the premises in question since long prior to
the coming into force of the Act of 1972. At any rate in
1971 there was a fresh oral lease between the parties
pursuant to which the tenant has been ever since using the
parties as a godown. Besides, the proceedings against the
tenant on the ground of deemed vacancy did not commence till
the filing of the application of allotment of the premises
in 1982 on the allegation that a deemed vacancy had arisen
in terms of section 12(3) of the Act. Thus, the tenant had
been put into possession of the premises by the landlord and
he had been treated as a tenant long before the coming into
force of the 1972 Act and no proceedings against the tenant
for recovery of the premises had been initiated at any time
prior to 1982. The tenant had been in occupation of the
premises at all material times with the consent of the
landlord, and no suit or other proceeding for eviction of
the tenant was pending before any court or authority when
the Amending Act of 1976 came into force. [772E-G, 773F]
1.3. In these circumstances, the High Court was wrong
in setting aside the concurrent findings of the statutory
authorities and remanding the case for further evidence.
[774B]
771
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2862 of 1992
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.3.1991 of the
Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. 15504 of 1988.
C.S. Vaidyanathan, P.K. Jain, Manoj Goyal and Ms. Abha
R. Sharma for the Appellant.
Satish Chandra and D.K. Garg for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
THOMMEN, J. Leave granted.
This appeal arises from the judgment of the Allahabad
High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 15504 of
1988. The appellant is the tenant. The landlord,
respondent herein, filed the Writ Petition in the High Court
challenging the concurrent findings of the Rent Control and
Eviction Officer, Rishikesh, Dehradun (hereinafter referred
to as the ‘Rent Controller’ or ‘Rent Court’) and the Court
of the Additional District Judge III, Dehradun (the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
"Revisional Court"), to the effect that the tenant was in
occupation of the premises in question since prior to
15.6.1976 for non-residential purposes. Setting aside these
findings of the Rent Court and the Revisional Court and
allowing the respondent-landlord’s Writ Petition, the High
Court remanded the case to the District Court, Dehradun for
fresh findings on the points in issue.
This order of remand by the High Court is now
challenged by the tenant in this appeal. It is not disputed
that the premises in question were taken on lease by the
tenant in 1958. He was residing in the premises. In 1968
he shifted his residence, but retained possession of the
premises. In 1971 a fresh lease was agreed upon between the
landlord and the tenant whereunder the tenant continued his
possession of the premises for the purpose of storing goods.
The premises have ever since been used by the tenant as a
godown. On 4.3.1982 one Y.P. Dhuliya filed an application
for allotment of the premises in terms of section 12(3) of
the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and
Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act No. 13 of 1972) alleging that a
"deemed vacancy" had arisen by reason of the tenant building
a residential building of his own and shifting his residence
to that building. The Rent Court declared the premises to
be vacant on
772
27.8.1982 A review petition was filed by the tenant against
that order. That petition was allowed by the Rent Court.
The landlord then filed a revision in the District Court.
His revision was allowed on 23.9.1983. The tenant then
approached the High Court by Writ Petition No. 11781 of
1983. Dismissing the Writ Petition on 17.4.1983, the High
Court held that the question of vacancy could be decided at
the time of allotment of the premises or the release of the
same to the landlord.
On 25.4.1984 the premises were released to the landlord
by order of the Rent Court. The tenant approached the
District Court in revision. That Court remanded the case to
the Rent Court. The Rent Court on 2.5.1986 held that the
tenant was in occupation of the premises since before
15.7.1978 with the consent of the landlord and no vacancy
had therefore occurred. The landlord filed a revision
petition before the Additional District Judge. That
petition was, by Order dated 11.7.1988, dismissed. The
learned Judge held that the premises having been at all
material times in the possession of the tenant, no vacancy
had occurred. Against these concurrent findings of the Rent
Court dated 2.5.1986 and the District Court dated 11.7.1988,
the landlord filed the Writ Petition in the High Court. The
High Court by the impugned order, as aforesaid, reversed the
findings and remanded the case to the District Court.
Having heard counsel on both sides, it does not seem to
be any longer in doubt that the tenant has been in
occupation of the premises in question since long prior to
the coming into force of Act 13 of 1972. At any rate in
1971 there was a fresh oral lease between the parties
pursuant to which the tenant has been ever since using the
premises as a godown. It is also not in doubt that the
proceedings against the tenant on the ground of deemed
vacancy did not commence until 4.3.1982, when one Y.P.
Dhuliya filed an application for allotment of the premises
on the allegation that a deemed vacancy had arisen in terms
of section 12(3) of the Act. These facts show that the
tenant had been put into possession of the premises by the
landlord and he had been treated as a tenant long before the
coming into force of Act 13 of 1972. It is also clear that
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
no proceedings against the tenant for recovery of the
premises had been initiated at any time prior to 1982. The
tenant had been in occupation of the premises at all
material times with the consent of the landlord.
Various questions are agitated before us on behalf of
the tenant. Mr.
773
Vaidyanathan appearing for the tenant contends that the High
Court was wrong in remanding the case. The view expressed
by the High Court as to the test to decide the character and
nature of the building or as to the applicability of section
12(3), counsel says, was incorrect. He, however, raises a
very significant contention on the basis of which we propose
to dispose of this case. Mr. Vaidyanathan says that facts
which are not in dispute clearly show that section 14 of Act
13 of 1972 (as amended by Act 28 of 1976) dealing with the
regularisation of occupation of existing tenants is
attracted and all defects, if any, in the occupation of the
premises by the appellant are cured, and the landlord is not
entitled to seek recovery of the premises.
Section 14 reads :
"14 Regularisation of 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."
It is not in dispute that the tenant has been in
uninterrupted occupation of the building with the consent of
the landlord at any rate during the period from 1971 to
1982. It is also not disputed that no suit or other
proceeding for eviction of the tenant was pending before any
court or authority at the relevant time, i.e., on 5.7.1976,
when U.P. Act 28 of 1976, amending U.P. Act 13 of 1972, came
into force.
Section 14 begins with a non obstante clause. It says
"Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other
law for the time being in force...... ." This clause leaves
no doubt that a tenant, who has been in occupation of the
premises with the consent of the landlord immediately before
5.7.1976 and against whom no case for eviction was pending
on that day, is deemed to be an authorised tenant of the
premises. His occupation is thus statutorily regularised.
Such a tenant has security of tenure, subject,
774
of course, to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Act
dealing with eviction of tenants on specified grounds.
In the circumstances, the High Court was wrong in
setting aside the concurrent findings of the statutory
authorities and remanding the case for further evidence.
The judgment of the High Court is set aside. The order of
the learned Additional District Judge dated 11.7.1988 is
restored.
The appeal shall, accordingly, stand allowed with costs.
N.P.V. Appeal allowed.
775
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5