Tenancy - U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Section 21(1)(a), proviso – Service of notice  - Notice for eviction - Notice sent “under certificate of posting” (UPC)  - No particular mode of giving notice by the landlord to the tenant has been provided for, meaning thereby that the same could be given orally or in writing; and if in writing, it is not necessary that it should be sent only by registered post -  What is required is that “the landlord has given a notice in that behalf to the tenant” - Where the Act provides for that ‘the landlord has given a notice…’, without specifying the mode of such notice, in the facts of the case, notice sent under postal certificate has rightly been held to be proper service - It may be so that mere receipt of notice having been sent under certificate of posting, in itself, may not be sufficient proof of service, but if the same is coupled with other facts and circumstances which go to show that the party had notice, the same could be held to be sufficient service on the party. #2020 SCeJ 656 [Para 13, 17, 18]

Held, In the present case, the law permits filing of a document (receipt of under certificate of posting in this case) to be filed along with an affidavit, which has been done so in this case. Further, there was clear admission of the respondent (tenant) that the appellant was his landlord (for which sale deed had been supplied to the tenant) and subsequent act of the respondent (tenant) depositing the rent under Section 30(1) of the Rent Control Act in the Court and other attending circumstances, as have been considered by the Prescribed Authority, would all clearly go to show that there was sufficient proof of service of notice, which finding of fact has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority, and we see no reason for the Writ Court to have unsettled such concurrent findings of fact. #2020 SCeJ 656 [Para 18]

 

(ii) Tenancy – Photocopy of receipt fo notice – Production of in evidence  - U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Section 34 sub-section (1) empowers the prescribed authority to receive evidence on affidavits - When the appellant (landlord) had filed the photocopy of the receipt of having sent the notice under certificate of posting, along with an affidavit, which was accepted by the Prescribed Authority, and coupled with the attending circumstances  a specific finding of fact was recorded that due notice, as required under Section 21 of the Rent Control Act, had been sent by the appellant (landlord) and received by the respondent (tenant), which is fully justified in law and such finding of fact was duly affirmed by the Appellate Authority. Such finding of fact (which was not merely a presumption of service based solely on notice having been sent under postal certificate), having been arrived at on the basis of valid reasons in the facts of the case, ought not to have been upset by the Writ Court. #2020 SCeJ 656 [Para 15]

 

(iii) Tenancy – Evidence Act – Applicability of  - In matters under the Rent Control Act, where evidence can also be led on affidavit - Evidence Act not applicable -  Procedure - U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972- Section 34. #2020 SCeJ 656  [Para 16]

 

 

(iv) Tenancy – Eviction - Prescribed Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have given clear finding of fact that the hardship of the appellant (landlord) was greater than that of the respondent (tenant) and, thus, allowed the release application, which finding has not been specifically considered or categorically upset by the Writ Court - Such finding of fact also does not require any interference by this Court - U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. #2020 SCeJ 656 [Para 19]

Judgment shall be uploaded here: https://www.plronline.in/2020-free/