Public religious trust properties and new constructions are exempt from U.P. Rent Control Act protections.

The plaintiffs (revisionists), a registered religious and charitable Trust, filed SCC Suit No. 05 of 2014 for recovery of rent, damages, and eviction against the defendant (respondent).

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was a tenant in shops no. 4 and 5, had defaulted on rent since August 2012, and that the tenancy was terminated via notice on 22.09.2012.

The plaintiffs claimed the shops were new constructions (assessed in 2001) and owned by a charitable trust, thus exempting the property from the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (Rent Control Act).

The defendant denied the Trust's ownership, claimed the construction was older than 1984, and asserted the protection of the Rent Control Act.

The SCC Court dismissed the suit on 31.08.2022, holding the Trust Deed unproved and the construction to be old.

The plaintiffs challenged this dismissal via civil revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887.

1. Whether the property in question qualifies as a "Trust Property" exempted from the operation of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 under Section 2(1)(bb).

2. Whether the construction of the suit property was "new" (post-1985) based on municipal assessments, thereby excluding it from the Rent Control Act.

3. Whether a landlord-tenant relationship was established and whether the defendant was estopped from challenging the Trust's title.

4. Whether an adverse inference should be drawn against the defendant for failing to lead oral or documentary evidence or appearing in the witness box.

Section 2(1)(bb) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, which exempts properties owned by public religious or charitable trusts from rent control regulations.

Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the presumption of validity for old documents (Trust Deed).

Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, which estops a tenant from denying the landlord's title.

Order XV Rule 5 of the CPC, requiring a tenant to deposit arrears of rent to contest a suit.

The Court followed the precedent in Chowdamma v. Vankatappa (2025 INSC 1038) and Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao (AIR 1999 SC 1441), establishing that an adverse presumption arises when a party fails to enter the witness box to state their case on oath.

The High Court found that the SCC Court erred in dismissing the suit by failing to appreciate the 2001 municipal assessment, which proved the shops were new constructions following a 1989 sanctioned map.

The Court noted that the defendant admitted to paying rent to the Trust’s Manager (Ambadutt Pant), which, under Section 116 of the Evidence Act, precluded the defendant from challenging the Trust’s ownership.

The Court observed that the defendant failed to enter the witness box or lead any evidence to rebut the plaintiffs' claims, necessitating an adverse inference against him.

The Court further held that the SCC Court ignored the registered Trust Deed (1988) and the reconstitution of the Trust for charitable purposes, which brought the property within the exemption of Section 2(1)(bb) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

The Court noted the defendant's failure to comply with Order XV Rule 5 CPC regarding the mandatory deposit of rent.

The Court held that the property is a Trust property exempted from the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and that the SCC Court failed to apply its judicial mind to the evidence regarding new construction and the landlord-tenant relationship.

The suit of the plaintiffs for eviction and recovery was effectively substantiated. No order as to costs was made.