SMT. SUDAMA DEVI & ORS. versus VIJAY NATH GUPTA & ANR. on 17 April 2018

[2018] 3 S.C.R. 446

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2018] 3 S.C.R.

A

SMT. SUDAMA DEVI & ORS.

v.

VIJAY NATH GUPTA & ANR.

(Civil Appeal No. 5903 of 2012)

B

APRIL 17, 2018

[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]

Rent control and eviction:

Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, RentCand Eviction) Act, 1972: ss. 20(2)(a), 20(4) proviso – Suit for evictionby plaintiff (respondent) against defendant (appellant) on the groundof non-payment of arrears of rent – Eviction decree by the trialcourt – In revision, eviction decree confirmed denying benefit of s.20(4) to tenant – Writ petition by defendant also dismissed – Onappeal, held: The court has discretion to pass decree for evictionDagainst tenant, in case the court finds that the tenant has ensuredcompliance of the requirements of s. 20(4) by depositing the rent,its arrears and damages – Proviso to s.20(4) states that s.20(4) willnot apply, if it is proved that a tenant or any member of his family,has either built or otherwise acquired the house in a vacant state,Eor has got vacated after acquisition, any residential building in thesame city, municipality – The language of proviso being plain andsimple leaves no ambiguity therein – Thus, on facts, tenant notentitled to take the benefit of s.20(4) because his case falls underthe proviso to sub-section(4) by virtue of the fact that his son, whois member of family being a male lineal descendants has built hisFresidential house in the same city and he is in its possession –Pursuant to eviction decree, the tenant can shift in the said house –Thus, the reasoning and the conclusions by the courts below areconcurred with.

Dismissing the appeal, the CourtG

HELD: 1.1 Reading of Section 20(4) of the Uttar PradeshUrban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act,1972 would go to show that when a landlord files a suit againsthis tenant seeking his eviction from the tenanted premises onthe ground of arrears of rent as specified under Section 20(2)(a)H

of the Act, the court has a discretion to pass a decree for evictionagainst the tenant or relieve him from the rigor of the evictiondecree, in case the court finds that the tenant has ensuredcompliance of the requirements of Section 20(4) of the Act bydepositing the rent, its arrears and damages together with interestas specified therein. [Paras 19, 20] [452-G-H]

1.2 The proviso provides that sub-section(4) of Section 20of the Act will not apply, if it is proved that a tenant or any memberof his family, has either built or otherwise acquired the house in avacant state, or has got vacated after acquisition, any residentialbuilding in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area.In order to attract the proviso, three facts need to be proved.First, the tenant or any member of his family, as specified underSection 3(g), has either built or otherwise acquired any residentialbuilding; Second, such residential building is in a vacant state;and third, such vacant residential building is situated in the samecity, municipality, notified area or town area where the suittenanted premises is situated. Once these three facts are proved,the proviso would apply against the tenant disentitling him toclaim the benefit of sub-section (4) of Section 20 to avoid decreefor his eviction passed against him under Section 20(2)(a) of theAct. [Paras 21-23] [453-B-E]

1.3 The main reason behind enacting such proviso is thatthe tenant, in such circumstances, would not suffer any hardship,if he is asked to vacate the tenanted premises pursuant to evictiondecree passed against him on the ground of arrears of rent underSection 20(2)(a) of the Act because he or any member of his familyhas built house or acquired it and got its vacant possessionsituated in the same city. Such tenant can, therefore, shift in thehouse of member of the family. [Para 24] [453-F]

1.4 There is no merit in the submission that it is only whenany member of tenant’s family is living with the tenant in thetenanted premises and if he owns any vacant residential buildingin the same city, the tenant can be deprived of the benefit of sub-section(4) of Section 20 but not otherwise. The language of provisobeing plain and simple leaving no ambiguity therein, the words ofthe proviso cannot be read the way counsel for the appellant wants A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athe Court to read therein. If such was the intention of thelegislature, then the proviso would have been worded accordingly.Such is, however, not the case here. [Paras 26-27] [453-H; 454-A-B]

1.5 The reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by theBCourts below are concurred with and it is held that the tenant,having rightly suffered a decree for eviction on the groundcontained under Section 20(2)(a), is not entitled to take the benefitof sub-section(4) of Section 20 because his case falls under theproviso to sub-section(4) by virtue of the fact that his son, who ismember of family being a male lineal descendants as specifiedCunder Section 3(g)(ii) of the Act, has built his residential house inthe same city and he is in its possession. The tenant can, therefore,shift in the said house once he is asked to vacate pursuant toeviction decree passed against him. The appellants are, however,granted three months’ time to vacate the suit house providedDthey deposit the entire arrears of rent till date. [Paras 28-29][454-C-D; 454-E]CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5903of 2012.

From the Judgment and Order dated 14.03.2011 of the High CourtEof Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Application No. 17758 of1998.Nagendra Rai, Sr. Adv., Anupam Mishra, Harikumar V., ShradChandra Srivastava, V. J. Francis, , Advs. for the Appellants.

Bhuvan Mishra, Divyanshu Srivastava, Jogy Scaria, Advs. forFthe Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This appeal is filed by thelegal representatives of the defendant(tenant) against the final judgmentand order dated 14.03.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature atGAllahabad in Civil Misc.Writ Petition No.17758 of 1998 whereby theHigh Court dismissed the petition filed by the defendant and upheld theorder dated 22.04.1998 passed by the Additional District Judge-XI,Gorakhpur in Civil Revision No.15 of 1997 by which he dismissed therevision filed by the defendant and confirmed the order dated 02.08.1997Hpassed by the Small Causes Court in Small Cause Case No.42 of 1986.

2. In order to appreciate the issue involved in the appeal, fewrelevant facts need to be mentioned infra.

3. The appellants are the legal representatives of original defendant- Chandrabhan Singh - who died during the pendency of the civil suitwhereas the respondents are legal representatives of Parasnath Gupta,Manager of the plaintiff-Shri Ramchander Ji, owner of the suit house.

4. The plaintiff claiming to be the landlord of the suit house filed acivil suit through his Manager against the defendant-Chandrabhan Singhfor his eviction from the suit house. The plaintiff, inter alia, alleged thatChandrabhan Singh was his monthly tenant living in the suit house. Itwas alleged that the defendant has all along been in arrears of rentinasmuch as he failed to pay the monthly rent from January 1977 onwardsto the plaintiff.

5. It was further alleged that the defendant paid a sum of Rs.656.25to the plaintiff, which the plaintiff adjusted against part of the arrears upto May 1980. It was alleged that despite the adjustment being made, thearrears still remained unpaid and default in payment of monthly rentcontinued to persist and hence notice for eviction and demand of arrearsof rent was given by the plaintiff to the defendant followed by filing ofthe civil suit claiming a decree for eviction of the defendant from the suithouse and arrears of rent against the defendant. The plaintiff sought adecree for the defendant’s eviction from the suit house on the ground ofnon-payment of arrears of rent as specified under Section 20(2)(a) ofthe Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent andEviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

6. The defendant denied the averments made in the plaint andjoined issues. One of the grounds raised by the defendant was that theprovisions of the Act do not apply to the suit house because the suithouse is the property of the Charitable Trust.

7. Issues were framed. Parties adduced their evidence. The TrialCourt by its judgment/order dated 02.08.1997 passed the decree foreviction and arrears of rent. It was held that the suit is maintainable,that the provisions of the Act are applicable, that the defendant was adefaulter in payment of monthly rent and its arrears, and that a groundunder Section 20(2)(a) of the Act is made out against the defendant forhis eviction from the suit house. Accordingly, the decree for defendant’seviction from the suit house was passed.

AB

C

DE

F

G

H

A8. The defendant felt aggrieved and filed a civil revision beforethe Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur. By order dated 22.04.1998,the Additional District Judge dismissed the revision and confirmed thejudgment and decree of the Trial Court.

9. It may be mentioned here that one question was also raised byBthe parties in the case, namely, whether any case under Section 20(4)read with its proviso was made out by the parties or not?

10. It was the case of the plaintiff (landlord) that the defendant isnot entitled to take any benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act to avoid thedecree of eviction passed against him under Section 20(2)(a) of the ActCbecause his son, who is a member of the tenant’s family, as definedunder Section 3(g) of the Act, has built his own house in the same cityand hence the defendant’s case would fall under proviso to Section 20(4)of the Act which would make Section 20(4) inapplicable to the tenant.The defendant opposed this contention on facts stating that his son livesseparately from him and hence proviso will not apply. The contention ofDthe plaintiff was upheld by the Revisional Court (ADJ) and accordinglythe eviction decree passed under Section 20(2)(a) of the Act against thedefendant was confirmed by denying the defendant the benefit of Section20(4) of the Act.11. The defendant felt aggrieved and filed writ petition underEArticle 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court. Byimpugned order, the Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writpetition and upheld the order of the Revisional Court (ADJ) and alsoaffirmed all the findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court, giving rise tofiling of this appeal by the defendant (tenant) by way of special leave inthis Court.F

12. Heard Mr. Nagendra Rai, learned senior counsel for theappellants and Mr. Bhuvan Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.

13. Learned senior counsel for the appellants while assailing thelegality and correctness of the impugned order argued only one point.G

14. Learned counsel, by referring to Sections 20(2)(a) and 20(4)of the Act, submitted that eviction decree passed under Section 20(2)(a)of the Act is always subject to ensuring compliance of Section 20(4) ofthe Act. Learned counsel contended that the defendant/tenant was ableto prove that he is entitled to claim benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act H

SMT. SUDAMA DEVI & ORS. v. VIJAY NATH GUPTA & ANR.[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

whereas the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant’s case fellunder proviso to Section 20(4) so as to deprive the defendant from takingbenefit of sub-Section (4) of Section 20 and avoid the decree for evictionpassed against him under Section 20(2)(a) of the Act.

15. Learned counsel further urged that since the defendant/tenantdid not construct his own house though his son constructed the house inthe same city but since his son was living separately from him, the provisoto Section 20(4) of the Act had no application to the case. It was hissubmission that the defendant was, therefore, entitled to claim the benefitof Section 20(4) of the Act and the eviction decree passed against himunder Section 20(2)(a)of the Act is liable to be set aside.

16. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents supported theimpugned order and contended that it does not call for any interference.

17. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record of the case, we find no merit in the appeal.

18. Section 3(g), Section 20(2)(a) and Section 20(4) of the Actwhich are relevant for this case read as under :

“ Section 3(g)

“family” in relation to a landlord or tenant of a building,means, his or her-

(i) spouse;

(ii) male lineal descendants

(iii) such parents, grandparents and any unmarried orwidowed or divorced or judicially separateddaughter or daughter of a male lineal descendant,as may have been normally residing with him or her,and includes, in relation to a landlord, any femalehaving a legal right of residence in that building Section 20(2)(a)

(a) That the tenant is in arrears of rent for not less thanfour months, and has failed to pay the same to the landlordwithin one month from the date of service upon him of anotice of demand:

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Provided that in relation to a tenant who is a memberof the armed forces of the Union and in whose favour thePrescribed Authority under the Indian Soldiers (Litigation)Act, 1925 (Act No. IV of 1925), has issued a certificate thathe is serving under special conditions within the meaningof Section 3 of that Act or where he has died by enemyaction while so serving, then in relation to his heirs, thewords “four months” in this clause shall be deemed to havebeen substituted by the words “one year”.

Section 20(4)

In any suit for eviction on the ground mentioned in clause(a) of sub-section (2), if at the first hearing of the suit thetenant unconditionally pays or tenders to the landlord ordeposits in court the entire amount of rent and damagesfor use and occupation of the building due from him (suchdamages for use and occupation being calculated at thesame rate as rent) together with interest thereon at therate of nine per cent per annum and the landlord’s costs ofthe suit in respect thereof, after deducting therefrom anyamount already deposited by the tenant under sub-section(1) of Section 30, the Court may, in lieu of passing a decreefor eviction on that ground, pass an order relieving thetenant against his liability for eviction on that ground:

Provided that nothing in this sub-section, shall applyin relation to a tenant who or any member of whose familyhas built or has otherwise acquired in a vacant state, or hasgot vacated after acquisition, any residential building in thesame city, municipality, notified area or town area.”

19. Reading of Section 20(4) of the Act would go to show thatwhen a landlord files a suit against his tenant seeking his eviction fromthe tenanted premises on the ground of arrears of rent as specified underSection 20(2)(a) of the Act, the Court has a discretion to pass a decreefor eviction against the tenant, in case the Court finds that the tenant hasensured compliance of the requirements of Section 20(4) of the Act bydepositing the rent, its arrears and damages together with interest asspecified therein.

20. In other words, if the Court finds that the tenant has ensuredcompliance of conditions specified in sub-section (4) of Section 20 ofthe Act at the first hearing of the suit filed by his landlord for his evictionon the ground of arrears of rent under Section 20(2) of the Act, it is thediscretion of the Court to either pass a decree for eviction against thetenant or relieve him from the rigor of the eviction decree.

21. The proviso, however, provides that sub-section(4) of Section20 of the Act will not apply, if it is proved that a tenant or any memberof his family, has either built or otherwise acquired the house in a vacantstate, or has got vacated after acquisition, any residential building in thesame city, municipality, notified area or town area.

22. In our opinion, in order to attract the proviso, three facts needto be proved. First, the tenant or any member of his family, as specifiedunder Section 3(g), has either built or otherwise acquired any residentialbuilding; Second, such residential building is in a vacant state; and third,such vacant residential building is situated in the same city, municipality,notified area or town area where the suit tenanted premises is situated.

23. Once these three facts are proved, the proviso would applyagainst the tenant disentitling him to claim the benefit of sub-section (4)of Section 20 to avoid decree for his eviction passed against him underSection 20(2)(a) of the Act.

24. The main reason behind enacting such proviso is that the tenant,in such circumstances, would not suffer any hardship, if he is asked tovacate the tenanted premises pursuant to eviction decree passed againsthim on the ground of arrears of rent under Section 20(2)(a) of the Actbecause he or any member of his family has built house or acquired itand got its vacant possession situated in the same city. Such tenant can,therefore, shift in the house of member of the family.

25. The submission of learned counsel for the defendant (tenant)was that in cases where the tenant’s son is living separately from hisfather(tenant) in his own house then such tenant cannot be made tosuffer the eviction decree once he complies with the requirements ofsub-section(4) of Section 20.

26. In other words, the submission was that it is only when anymember of tenant’s family is living with the tenant in the tenanted premisesand if he owns any vacant residential building in the same city, the tenant A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Acan be deprived of the benefit of sub-section(4) of Section 20 but nototherwise. We find no merit in this submission.

27. In our view, the language of proviso being plain and simpleleaving no ambiguity therein, we cannot read the words of the proviso,the way learned counsel for the appellant wants us to read therein toBaccept his submission. In our view, if such was the intention of thelegislature, then the proviso would have been worded accordingly. Suchis, however, not the case here.

28. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we concur with thereasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the Courts below andCaccordingly hold that the tenant, having rightly suffered a decree foreviction on the ground contained under Section 20(2)(a), is not entitledto take the benefit of sub-section(4) of Section 20 because his case fallsunder the proviso to sub-section(4) by virtue of the fact that his son, whois member of family being a male lineal descendants as specified underSection 3(g)(ii) of the Act, has built his residential house in the same cityDand he is in its possession. The tenant can, therefore, shift in the saidhouse once he is asked to vacate pursuant to eviction decree passedagainst him.

29. The appeal thus fails and is accordingly dismissed. Theappellants are, however, granted three months’ time to vacate the suitEhouse provided they deposit the entire arrears of rent till date, if theyhave not so far deposited or paid to the respondents and also to depositthree months’ rent by way of damages for use and occupation withintwo weeks from the date of order in the Court below. Failure to makedeposit and submit an undertaking by the appellants to this Court withinFtwo weeks to vacate the suit premises within three months will entitlethe respondents to execute the decree forthwith on the expiry of twoweeks.

G

Nidhi Jain

Appeal dismissed.

H