Summary
Section 14 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act (For short, the Act) as it stood prior to its amendment in 1976 and also after its amendment by the U.P. Act No. 28 of 1976 deals with regularisation of occupation of existing tenants. The unamended section 14 of the Act provided that a person must satisfy two conditions in order to get the benefit of this section, namely, (i) that he was a tenant in occupation of a building with the consent of the landlord immediately before the commencement of this Act and (ii) that he was not a person against whom proceedings under section 7A of the old Act are pending immediately before such commencement. The amended section 14 of the Act lays down that a person shall be deemed to be an authorised licensee or tenant of building if (i) any licensee or tenant is in occupation of a building with the consent of the landlord immediately before the commencement of the Act as amended by the U.P. Act No. 28 of 1976 and (ii) that he was not a person against whom any suit or proceeding for eviction is pending before any court or authority on the date of such commencement. Section 3(a) of the Act provides that a tenant in relation to a building means a person by whom its rent is payable, and on the tenant's death, in the case of a non-residential building, his heirs.
On the death of Naubat Singh-a tenant in a shop situated in Bulandshahr, the landlord started eviction proceedings u/s. 12 read with s. 16 of the Act for the release of his shop. The appellant a nephew of the deceased tenant, resisted the eviction application on the grounds: (i) that he was entitled to get the benefit of the amended and/or unamended section 14 of the Act since he had been helping the deceased tenant in his business for the last several years and remained in continuous possession of the disputed shop after his death; and (2) that he was an heir of the deceased tenant on the basis of a will executed by the deceased tenant in his favour and therefore be was a tenant within the meaning of section 3(a) of the Act.890 The Rent Control and Eviction officer rejected the application holding that the appellant was entitled to get the tenancy rights under the unamended s. 14 of the Act. In revision the Additional District Judge held that, since even after the death of Naubat Singh on 31st August 1974, the appellants been, permitted to continue in possession of the premises, he got the benefit of amend ed s. 14 of the Act and therefore dismissed the revision petition. Thereupon the landlord filed a writ petition under Article 226 in the High Court against the orders of the two authorities below. The High Court negatived all the contentions of the appellants, allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders of the authorities below and directed the Rent Control and Eviction officer to decide the release application afresh in accordance with the law. Hence this appeal by special leave.Dismissing the appeal,^HELD: (1) Admittedly Naubat Singh was the tenant of the shop on the date immediately preceding the commencement of the Act, that is, 15th July 1972 and he was alive and therefore no question of the appellant being regularised as a tenant arises. The appellant also could not get the benefit of amended sec. 14, since at the relevant time the application for release filed by the landlord against the appellant was pending in the court of Additional District Judge by way of revision petition wherein the landlord had contested the claim of tenancy by appellant. [893 H; 894, B-C](2) The word 'heir' has been construed both in a wider as well as in a narrower sense. Which sense will be applicable to the facts of a particular case will depend upon the intention and scheme of a particular legislation in which the question occurs. [895 G]Smt. Rukmani v. III Addl. District Judge, Kanpur (1) 1977 ARC 72 and Munni Lal v. Smt. Shiva Devi 1981 ARC (S.N.13); referred to Gulzara Singh v. Smt. Tej Kaur, AIR 1961 Punjab 288, approved.(3) It is clear from a survey of ss 3(g), 11, 12,13 and 15 of the Act that there are restrictions placed by the Act on the right of the tenant to transfer or sublet the tenancy rights and he can keep possession of the building or premises for himself and for the purpose of his family, for his business and for the business of his family members. He obviously cannot be allowed to transfer a tenancy right. A fortiori, the scheme of the Act does not warrant the transfer of the tenancy right to be effective after his lifetime. [897 G-H](4) In the instant case, the appellant was neither a tenant of the disputed shop nor he was an heir of the deceased tenant since he is not a member of the family of the deceased tenant as defined u/s. 3(g) of the Act.Besides, on a plain reading of the will it is evident that the will has been executed in respect of other properties including his business but not in respect of the tenancy right. There fore, this Court sees no reason to differ from the finding of the High Court. [898 A-B]See the full content of this document
Extract
Jaspal Singh VS. Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr And Ors.
PETITIONER: JASPAL SINGH Vs.RESPONDENT: ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BULANDSHAHR AND ORS.DATE OF JUDGMENT28/09/1984BENCH: MISRA, R.B. (J)BENCH: MISRA, R.B. (J)VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)CITATION: 1984 AIR 1880 1985 SCR (1) 889 1984 SCC (4) 434 1984 SCALE (2)538CITATOR INFO : R 1986 SC 600 (9)ACT: U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, ss. 3(a), 3(g), 11, 13, 14 and 15- Whether tenancy rights can be devised by a "Will"Words and Phrases-"heir"-Meaning of.JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1275 of 1979Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated 891the 27th March, 1979 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 1416 of 1977.Mr. E.C. Agarwala, Advocate for the Appellant.Mr. J. P. Goyal, Mr. S. R. Jain and Mr. Rajesh, for the Re...
See the full content of this document