GEETA GUPTA versus RAMESH CHANDRA DWIVEDI & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 73 · Decided: 20-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY RASTOGI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
73
GEETA GUPTA
v.
RAMESH CHANDRA DWIVEDI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4750 of 2011)
SEPTEMBER 20, 2021
[AJAY RASTOGI AND ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.]
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent
and Eviction) Act, 1972 – Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation
of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 – The appellant acquired
a property by a sale deed dated 13.03.1994 – The said property
included two gaddis, two godowns and a tin shed (collectively
referred as disputed property), which was earlier given by the
vendor/predecessors-in-title of the appellant to another person ‘D’
by way of tenancy – An application was filed u/s.16 of the Act by
the second respondent for allotment of the said disputed property,
on the premise that the disputed property had fallen vacant – An
inspection report was prepared – The report recorded that first
respondent was carrying on his business in the said disputed
property and he was inducted as tenant by ‘D’ in November 1975 –
The Addl. City Magistrate held that the first respondent was in
continuous possession as a tenant on the basis of an agreement
dated 15.11.1975 and he had become a tenant of the disputed
premises – Hence, the disputed property was not vacant – A writ
petition filed against the said judgment before the High Court was
rejected – Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that
on 05.07.1976, the disputed premises were vacant and after
purchasing property in the year 1994, she has not received any
income from the said property – Held: The first respondent has relied
on the agreement dated 15.11.1975 by which tenancy on him was
conferred – There is a finding recorded by the Addl. City Magistrate
that the predecessors-in-title of the appellant had never raised any
objection right from the year 1975 regarding the possession of the
first respondent –  Thus, the first respondent was in possession as a
tenant prior to 05.07.1976 – So, he shall be deemed to be tenant by
virtue of s.14 of the Act – There is no fault in the order of the Addl.
City Magistrate – Therefore, if appellant wants eviction of the first
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 73
73
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
74
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
respondent, she will have to take recourse to s.20 or s.21 of the Act
– However, the first respondent is directed to deposit all the arrears
of rent in pending proceedings u/s.30 of the Act before the Court of
Civil Judge – Thus, there is no error in the view taken by the Addl.
City Magistrate and confirmation of the same by the High Court.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The first respondent relied upon the agreement
dated 15th November, 1975 purportedly executed by the said ‘D’
claiming to be the power of attorney holder and manager of the
original owners. The first respondent is the second party to the
said Agreement on whom tenancy in respect of the disputed
premises was conferred. The finding of fact recorded by the Addl.
City Magistrate is that the original owners never denied that the
said ‘D’ was their attorney or manager and that the original owners
neither served any notice nor filed a suit for eviction. In the
counter, the first respondent has relied upon the said agreement.
In the rejoinder, the appellant alleged that the said document
was fabricated. However, the petitioner has not produced on
record anything to show that from 1975 to 1994, the original
owners raised any objection to the induction of the first
respondent as a tenant of the disputed premises in the year 1975.
Thus, the first respondent was inducted in possession as a tenant
prior to 5th July, 1976. The finding recorded by the Addl. City
Magistrate is that to the presence of the first respondent, the
predecessors-in-title, of the appellant had never raised any
objection right from the year 1975. Therefore, the Addl. City
Magistrate concluded that in absence of the evidence of
predecessors-in-title of the appellant, it is very difficult to accept
that right from the year 1975, the first respondent continued to
be in possession without the consent of the original owners.
There is nothing wrong about this inference drawn by the Addl.
Magistrate that the first respondent was inducted with the consent
of the predecessors-in-title of the appellant. This Court finds no
error in the said view taken by the Addl. City Magistrate and
confirmed by the High Court. [Para 12][79-B-G]
2. As the first respondent was a tenant in possession on 5th
July, 1976 with the consent of the original owners,

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