CHETAR SEN JAIN versus ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE III, DEHRADUN AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] 3 S.C.R. 769 · Decided: 07-08-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.K. THOMMEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

+ 
CHETAR SEN JAIN 
A 
v. 
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE III, DEHRADUN AND ORS. 
AUGUST 7, 1992 
[T.K. THOMMEN AND.S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.) 
B 
--f_, 
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 
1972: 
' 
Section 14-Regularisation of Tenancy-Tenant in occupation 'Of c 
-
premises with the consent of the landlord before the Act came into force-No 
suit or other proceedings for eviction pending at the time of coming into force 
of Amending Act of 1976-Whether tenant entitled lo benefit of regularisation. 
The appellant-tenant took on lease the premises belonging to the 
respondent in 1958 for residential purposes. He shifted his residence in D 
1968, but continued to be in possession of the same till 1.982 under a fresh 
lease agreed upon between him and the landlord for the purpose of storing 
goods. 
In 1982 one 'D' filed an application for allotment of the premise!' in E 
terms of Section 12(3) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Lett,ing, 
Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 alleging that a "deemed vacancy" had arlsen 
by reason of the tenant constructing a residential building of his own ,and 
-
shifting therein. The Rent Court declared the premises to be vacant,, but 
the litigation went upto the High Court, which held that the questi~n of 
vacancy could be decided at the time of allotment of the premises or the F 
)::: 
release of the same to the landlord. 
Thereafter, in 1984 the premises were released to the landJord by the 
order of the Rent Court but in revision the District Court remande(l the 
case to the Rent Court, which held that the tenant was in occupati~n of G 
the premises with the consent of the landJord and no vacancy had, there-
--( 
fore, occurred. In revision, the Additional District Judge also held that the 
premises having been at all material times in the possession of the tenant, 
no vacany had occurred. However, on a Writ Petition filed by the landlord, 
the High Court reversed the concurrent findings and remanded the case 
to the District Court for fresh findings. Hence, the appeal by special leave H 
769 
770 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1992) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
by the tenant. 
B 
On behalf of tlie tenant/appellant it was contended that lligb Court 
was wrong in remanding the case for fresh findings and that section 14 of 
the Act as amended by Act 28 of 1976, dealing with the regularisation of 
occupation of existing tenants was attracted and all defects, if any, in the 
occupation of the premises by the appellant were cured, and the landlord 
was not entitled to seek recovery of the premises. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
C 
HELD: 1.1. Section 14 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of 
Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 begins with a non obstante clause. This 
clause leaves no doubt that a tenant who has been in occupation of the 
premises with the consent of the landlord immediately before the Amending 
Act of 1976 came into force and against whom no case for eviction was 
pending on that day, is deemed to be an authorised tenant of the premises. 
D His occupation is thus statutorily regularised. Such a tenant has security of 
tenure, subject, of course, to the provisions of Chapter IV of the Act dealing 
with eviction of tenants on specified grounds.-[773G-H, 774 A-F]-
1.2. In the instant case, the tenant has been in occupation of the 
E 
premises in question since long prior to the coming into force of the Act of 
1972. At any rate in 1971 there was a fresh oral lease between the parties 
pursuant to which the tenant has been ever since using the premises as a 
godown. Besides, the proceedings against the tenant on the ground of 
deemed vacancy did not commence till the filing of the application for 
allotment of the premises in 1982 on the allegation that a deemed vacancy 
F 
had arisen in terms of section 12 (3) of the Act. Thus, the tenant had been put 
into possession of the premises by the landlord and he had been treated as a 
tenant long before the coming into force of the 1972 Act and no proceedings 
against the tenant for recovery of the premises had been initiated at any time 
prior to 1982. The tenant had been in occupation of the premises at all 
G matrial times with the consent of the landlord, and no suit or other proceed-
ing for eviction of the tenant was pending before any court or authority when 
the Amending Act of 1976 came into force. [772E-G, 773F] 
1.3. In these circumstances, the High Court was wrong in setting 
aside the concurrent findings of 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.