Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Mohd. Asif Naseer, purchased a shop (Shop No.64) in Lucknow via registered sale deed dated 29.10.2004. The respondent, West Watch Company, was a tenant in the shop since 1951, paying a monthly rent of Rs.15, and running a watch repair and sale business. The appellant sought eviction under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, claiming bona fide need to start his own watch business, as he was assisting his father and had no other shop. He alleged the respondent was wealthy, owned other properties, and had other commercial accommodations. The respondent contested, claiming the shop was his only source of livelihood and that he had tried but failed to find alternate accommodation. The Prescribed Authority allowed the release application on 04.10.2011, holding that the appellant had given six months' notice as required, the need was bona fide, and comparative hardship favored the landlord. The Appellate Authority affirmed on 05.02.2016. The High Court, in a writ petition by the tenant, reversed these orders on 27.07.2016, primarily on the ground that there was no valid notice because no presumption of service arises from a notice sent under certificate of posting. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the proviso to Section 21(1)(a) does not prescribe any particular mode of notice; it can be oral or written, and if written, need not be by registered post. The Prescribed Authority had found notice was given based on evidence, including that the tenant filed an application to deposit rent after the notice was sent. The High Court erred in overturning this finding. The concurrent findings on comparative hardship were not disturbed. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the orders of the Prescribed Authority and Appellate Authority, directing the tenant to vacate within three months, subject to the landlord paying two years' rent as compensation.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Notice Requirement - Section 21(1)(a) Proviso, U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - The proviso does not prescribe any particular mode of giving notice; it can be oral or written, and if written, need not be sent only by registered post. The requirement is that the landlord has given a notice in that behalf to the tenant. (Paras 12-13) B) Rent Control - Evidence - Certificate of Posting - Section 34, U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - The Prescribed Authority can receive evidence on affidavit. The finding of notice having been given was based on facts, including that the tenant admitted the landlord and filed an application to deposit rent after the notice was sent. The High Court erred in holding that no presumption of service arises from certificate of posting. (Paras 13-14) C) Rent Control - Comparative Hardship - Section 21(1)(a), U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - The High Court did not disturb the concurrent findings of the Prescribed Authority and Appellate Authority that the landlord's need was bona fide and pressing and that comparative hardship was in favor of the landlord. The High Court's mere passing mention cannot upset those findings. (Para 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the requirement of six months' notice under the proviso to Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 can be satisfied by notice sent under certificate of posting, and whether the High Court was justified in reversing the concurrent findings of the Prescribed Authority and Appellate Authority on the ground of lack of proper notice.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the orders of the Prescribed Authority and Appellate Authority. The tenant was directed to vacate the shop within three months, subject to the landlord paying two years' rent as compensation.
Law Points
- Notice under Section 21(1)(a) proviso of U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting
- Rent and Eviction) Act
- 1972 can be oral or written
- no particular mode of service is prescribed
- certificate of posting can be evidence of notice
- High Court erred in holding that no presumption of service arises from certificate of posting.
