PLR Supreme Court

e@journal

 (2018)1 SCeJ 823

Supreme Court e@journal

17 April, 2018

Rent act - Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, Section 20(2)(a) - Whether proviso of Section 20(4) of the Act was available to a tenant whose son, who is a member of the tenant’s family, as defined under Section 3(g) of the Act, has built his own house in the same city in order to avoid the decree of eviction passed against him under Section 20(2)(a) of the Act - If proviso does not apply then the tenant is liable for eviction under section 20(4)  -  In order to attract the proviso, three facts need to be proved : First, the tenant or any member of his family, as specified under Section 3(g), has either built or otherwise acquired any residential building; 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 - Reason behind enacting such proviso is that the tenant, in such circumstances, would not suffer any hardship, if he is asked to vacate the tenanted premises pursuant to eviction decree passed against him on the ground of arrears of rent under Section 20(2)(a) of the Act because he or any member of his family has built house or acquired it and got its vacant possession situated in the same city - Such tenant can, therefore, shift in the house of member of the family – Plea that tenant's son is living separately from his father(tenant) in his own house and that it is only when any member of tenant's family is living with the tenant in the tenanted premises and if he owns any vacant residential building in the same city, the tenant can be deprived of the benefit of sub-section(4) of Section 20 but not otherwise has no merit – Eviction upheld.

 

Download

(2018)1 SC e@j 823 - Rent Act.pdf
Adobe Acrobat Document 116.0 KB