Case Note & Summary
The appellant-landlord filed a petition under Section 21(i)(a) of the U.P. Urban Building (Control of Letting of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, seeking release of premises let out to the respondent-tenant for the personal use of the appellant's son, who is a practicing advocate. On 05.09.2012, the Prescribed Authority passed an ex-parte order against the tenant. The tenant filed applications for setting aside the ex-parte order, which was allowed on 20.08.2015 on payment of costs of Rs.2500/-. The landlord challenged this order by filing a writ petition before the High Court, also seeking amendment of the prayer to challenge a subsequent order dated 25.08.2015. The High Court disposed of the writ petition on 15.09.2015, holding that the rent court had set aside the ex-parte order and granted an opportunity to the tenant on payment of costs, directing that neither party take unnecessary adjournments. The landlord appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, noting that the tenant did not appear, considered the facts and circumstances and declined to interfere with the High Court's order. However, taking note of the tenant's conduct, the Court directed the Prescribed Authority to dispose of Rent Case No.1 of 2012 within two months from receipt of the order, with the tenant's cooperation, failing which the Authority may proceed in accordance with law. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Release of Premises - Section 21(i)(a) U.P. Urban Building (Control of Letting of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Landlord sought release of premises for son's personal use as advocate - Tenant obtained ex-parte order set aside on cost - High Court directed no unnecessary adjournments - Supreme Court declined to interfere but directed early disposal of rent case within two months - Held that opportunity to tenant to file written statement should not be disturbed, but tenant must cooperate for early disposal (Paras 2-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in not allowing amendment of prayer and in disposing of the writ petition without interfering with the order setting aside ex-parte eviction order.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court but directed the Prescribed Authority to dispose of Rent Case No.1 of 2012 within two months from receipt of the order, with the tenant's cooperation, failing which the Authority may proceed in accordance with law. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 21(i)(a) of U.P. Urban Building (Control of Letting of Rent and Eviction) Act
- 1972
- Order VI Rule 17 CPC
- Section 151 CPC
Case Details
2019 LawText (SC) (10) 93
Civil Appeal No(s). 26/2016
R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna, Hrishikesh Roy
Mr. V.C. Shukla (for appellant)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal against High Court order in writ petition concerning eviction proceedings under U.P. Urban Building Act.
Remedy Sought
Appellant-landlord sought to challenge the order setting aside ex-parte eviction order and sought amendment of prayer in writ petition.
Filing Reason
Appellant-landlord aggrieved by High Court order disposing of writ petition without interfering with the order setting aside ex-parte eviction order.
Previous Decisions
Prescribed Authority passed ex-parte order on 05.09.2012; set aside on 20.08.2015 on payment of costs; High Court disposed of writ petition on 15.09.2015.
Issues
Whether the High Court erred in not allowing amendment of prayer in the writ petition.
Whether the High Court should have interfered with the order setting aside ex-parte eviction order.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant-landlord argued that respondent-tenant kept taking adjournments and filing applications, delaying proceedings.
Respondent-tenant did not appear to contest the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that where an opportunity has been provided to the tenant to file written statement, the order setting aside ex-parte eviction should not be disturbed, but considering the tenant's conduct, the rent case must be disposed of expeditiously within a fixed time frame.
Judgment Excerpts
We have heard Mr. V.C. Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that an opportunity has been provided to the respondent-tenant to file the written statement, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
We direct the Rent Court-Prescribed Authority/ACMM-IX, Kanpur Nagar, U.P., to take up Rent Case NO.1 of 2012 at an early date and dispose of the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Procedural History
Landlord filed petition under Section 21(i)(a) of U.P. Act before Prescribed Authority. Ex-parte order passed on 05.09.2012. Tenant's application to set aside ex-parte order allowed on 20.08.2015 on cost. Landlord filed writ petition in High Court (C.M.W.P. No.48964 of 2015) challenging that order and sought amendment to challenge subsequent order dated 25.08.2015. High Court disposed of writ petition on 15.09.2015. Landlord appealed to Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No.26/2016).
Acts & Sections
- U.P. Urban Building (Control of Letting of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972: 21(i)(a)
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order VI Rule 17, Section 151
