Summary
The Court upheld the finding that the premises were occupied by an authorised tenant under Section 14 of the Uttar Pradesh rent statute and could not be treated as vacant for allotment. The record supported landlord consent to the respondent’s pre-July 1976 tenancy. The purchaser had to pursue the statutory eviction remedies rather than vacancy proceedings. The tenant was directed to clear any rent arrears through August 2021 within six weeks and continue payment or deposit; any future eviction proceedings were to receive priority.
Issues
- Whether the respondent’s pre-amendment occupation with the original owners’ consent attracted statutory tenancy regularisation.
- Whether the purchaser could obtain relief through vacancy proceedings and what rent safeguards were required.
Provisions considered
- Section 14, Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972The respondent’s occupation as tenant with the original owners’ consent before the 1976 amendment attracted authorised-tenancy protection. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14)
Held
- The 1975 agreement and the absence of objection by the original owners throughout their ownership supported the authority’s inference that the respondent was inducted with their consent. The later purchaser produced nothing establishing a contemporaneous objection, and the inference warranted no interference. (¶¶ 3, 11, 12)
- The respondent qualified for Section 14 protection as a tenant in possession with landlord consent before commencement of the 1976 amendment. The refusal to declare vacancy was upheld. Any eviction sought by the purchaser required recourse to the Act’s eviction provisions, including Sections 20 or 21 as applicable; the cited vacancy and subletting authorities did not alter the result. (¶¶ 11, 13, 14, 15)
- To safeguard payment, the tenant had to deposit any arrears up to 31 August 2021 within six weeks and regularly deposit rent thereafter in the identified proceedings, or pay the purchaser directly. The purchaser could seek lawful withdrawal of deposits. Any eviction proceedings she instituted were to receive priority in view of the longstanding dispute. (¶¶ 16, 17)
- Subject to those rent-payment and priority directions, the appeal was dismissed. The Court did not grant eviction or finally decide any future statutory eviction ground. (¶¶ 14, 17, 18)
Result
Appeal dismissed subject to clearance of specified arrears within six weeks, continued rent payment or deposit, and priority disposal of any future eviction proceedings.