Summary
The Supreme Court upheld eviction for rent default and denied the tenant relief under section 20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh rent statute. His son, a male lineal descendant within the statutory family, had built and possessed a residential house in the same city. Separate residence did not remove the son from the proviso’s operation. The tenant’s representatives received three months to vacate subject to deposits and an undertaking within two weeks; default permitted prompt execution.
Issues
- Whether the tenant’s separately residing son remained a family member for the section 20(4) proviso.
- Whether acquisition of the same-city residence excluded relief against default eviction.
- What conditions applied to time for vacation.
Provisions considered
- Section 3(g), Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972The quoted family definition included male lineal descendants. The Court declined to add a co-residence requirement for the tenant’s son. (¶¶ 18, 25, 26, 27, 28)
- Section 20(4) and proviso, Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972The first-hearing payment provision did not apply where the tenant or statutory family member had the qualifying residential building in the same locality. The son’s separately occupied house brought this case within the proviso. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 28)
Held
- The statutory relief against default eviction involved compliance with the first-hearing payment requirements and remained subject to the proviso. The Court described relief under subsection (4) as discretionary and rejected an unconditional entitlement merely from compliance with payment conditions. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21)
- The Court identified the qualifying acquisition or construction, vacant possession and location in the same city or specified locality as the relevant facts. The tenant’s son had built and possessed such a residential house; the proposed requirement that he also live with the tenant could not be read into the provision. (¶¶ 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28)
- The son remained a family member as a male lineal descendant despite living separately. The proviso therefore excluded the claimed subsection (4) protection and the default eviction decree stood. (¶¶ 18, 28)
- Three months to vacate required deposit of unpaid arrears and three months’ occupation charges in the court below, and an undertaking to this Court within two weeks. Failure to comply entitled the landlord to execute after two weeks. (¶ 29)
Result
Appeal dismissed; eviction upheld. Conditional three-month vacation period granted, requiring deposits and undertaking within two weeks, failing which execution could proceed.