Case Note & Summary
The case involves a dispute between the landlord (respondent) and tenants (appellants) over a building in Almora, Uttarakhand. The landlord filed an application under Section 21(1)(a)(b) of the U.P. Urban Building Act, 1972 for release of the building, initially pleading bonafide requirement and dilapidated condition, but later pressed only the ground of dilapidated condition under Section 21(1)(b). The Prescribed Authority rejected the application. The landlord's appeal to the District Judge was also dismissed, holding the building not dilapidated. The landlord then filed a writ petition in the High Court, which initially allowed eviction. The Supreme Court set aside that order and remanded the matter. On remand, the High Court again allowed eviction. The tenants appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noted that the building had been standing for over 24 years despite a notice from the Nagar Palika in 1996/1997 declaring it dilapidated. The tenants expressed readiness to repair the building at their own cost. The Court, balancing the interests, disposed of the appeals by permitting the tenants to carry out repairs within six months at their own expense, without any deduction from rent. After repairs, the Town Planning Authority is to inspect and determine if the building is safe. If safe, no further action; if still dilapidated, the landlord may initiate fresh proceedings. The Court did not order eviction but gave the tenants an opportunity to preserve the building.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction on Ground of Dilapidated Building - Section 21(1)(b) U.P. Urban Building Act, 1972 - Opportunity to Repair - The landlord sought eviction of tenants claiming the building was dilapidated and required reconstruction. The tenants offered to repair the building at their own cost. The Supreme Court, considering the long passage of time (over 24 years) and the tenants' willingness, allowed the tenants to carry out repairs within six months at their own cost, without claiming adjustment from rent. The Court directed the Town Planning Authority to inspect the building after repairs to determine if it remains dilapidated. If safe, no further action; if still dilapidated, the landlord may initiate fresh proceedings. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tenants should be evicted under Section 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Urban Building Act, 1972 on the ground that the building is in a dilapidated condition, or whether they should be given an opportunity to repair the building at their own cost.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals by permitting the tenants to get the building repaired at their own cost within six months, without claiming any adjustment from rent. The Town Planning Authority is to inspect the building after repairs to determine if it remains dilapidated. If safe, no further action; if still dilapidated, the landlord may initiate fresh proceedings.
Law Points
- Section 21(1)(b) of U.P. Urban Building Act
- 1972
- dilapidated building
- eviction
- repair by tenant
- opportunity to repair
Case Details
2019 LawText (SC) (4) 109
Civil Appeal Nos. 3895-3896 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 35494-95 of 2017)
L. Nageswara Rao, M.R. Shah
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal against High Court order allowing eviction of tenants on ground of dilapidated building under Section 21(1)(b) of U.P. Urban Building Act, 1972.
Remedy Sought
Tenants sought to set aside the High Court's eviction order and sought permission to repair the building at their own cost.
Filing Reason
Landlord filed release application under Section 21(1)(a)(b) of the Act claiming building was dilapidated and required reconstruction.
Previous Decisions
Prescribed Authority rejected release application; District Judge dismissed appeal; High Court initially allowed writ petition; Supreme Court remanded; High Court again allowed eviction; Review dismissed.
Issues
Whether the building is in a dilapidated condition requiring demolition and reconstruction under Section 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Urban Building Act, 1972.
Whether the tenants should be given an opportunity to repair the building at their own cost to avoid eviction.
Submissions/Arguments
Tenants argued that the building is not dilapidated and can be repaired; they offered to repair at their own cost.
Landlord argued that the building is in imminent danger of collapse and requires reconstruction.
Ratio Decidendi
Where a building is claimed to be dilapidated under Section 21(1)(b) of the U.P. Urban Building Act, 1972, but the tenants are willing to repair the building at their own cost and the building has stood for many years, the court may grant an opportunity to the tenants to carry out repairs before ordering eviction, balancing the interests of both parties.
Judgment Excerpts
Having heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering the material on record and the different opinions/Reports and even considering the fact that the notice was issued by the Nagar Palika, Almora in the year 1996/1997 stating that the building was in a dilapidated condition and therefore the same is required to be demolished and still even after period of approximately 24 years, the building stands and as the tenants are ready and willing to get the building in question repaired at their own cost and the same is not to be deducted from the rent, we are of the opinion that one opportunity is required to be given to the tenants to get the building repaired.
Hence, the present appeals are disposed of by permitting the appellantstenants to get the building in question repaired at their own cost and the tenants shall not claim any adjustment of the expenses incurred over repairing from the rent to be paid and the appellantstenants to get the building repaired at their own cost within the period of six months from today.
Procedural History
Landlord filed release application under Section 21(1)(a)(b) of U.P. Urban Building Act before Prescribed Authority, Almora, which was rejected. Landlord appealed to District Judge, Almora, who dismissed the appeal. Landlord filed Writ Petition No.5459 of 2001 before High Court of Uttarakhand, which initially allowed eviction. Tenants filed SLP before Supreme Court, which set aside High Court order and remanded. On remand, High Court again allowed eviction. Tenants filed review, which was dismissed. Tenants then filed present appeals before Supreme Court.
Acts & Sections
- U.P. Urban Building Act, 1972: 21(1)(a), 21(1)(b), 22
