JASPAL SINGH versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BULANDSHAHR AND ORS.

Citation: [1985] 1 S.C.R. 889 · Decided: 28-09-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

r .... 
' , 
JASPAL SINGH 
v. 
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BULANDSHAHR 
AND ORS. 
September 28, 1984 
(E. S: VENKATARAMIAI! AND R. B. MISRA, JJ.] 
889 
U,P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, 11£nt and Eviction) Act, 1971, 
JS. 3(a), J(g), II, 13, 14 and IS-Whether tenancy rightJ can be devised by a 
.. w;1r· 
Word.rand Phrases-"'heir""-Meanlng of .. 
I 
. 
Section 14 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and 
Eviction) Act (For short, the Act) as it stood prior to its amendn1ent in 1976 and 
also after its amendment by the U.P. Act No. 28 or 1976 deals with regulari· 
sation of occupation of existing tenants. The unamended section 14 of the Act 
provided that a person mu~t satisfy twO conditions in order to set the benefit of 
'this section, namely. (i) that he was a tenant in occupation of a building with the · 
consent of the landlord imrne.:fiately before the commencement of this Act and 
(ii) that he was not a person against whom proceedings under section 7A of the 
old Act are pendina immediately before such commencement.· The amended 
section 14 of the Act lays down that a person Shall be deemed to be an authori· 
sed licen!ec or tenant. of building . if (i} any licensee or tenant is ·in occupation 
of a building with the Consent of the landlord immCdiately before the commenCe .. 
ment of, the Act as amended by the U.P. Act No. 28 of 1976 and (ii) that he 
was not a i;erson against whom any suit or proceeding for eviction is pending 
before any court or authority on the date of such commencement. Section J(a) 
of the Act provides that a tenant in relation to a building means a person by 
whom its fent i!i payable, and on the tenant's death, in the case of a non-re~i· 
dential building, his heirs. 
On the death of Naubat Singh-a tenant in a shop situated in Buland· 
shahr, the landlord started eviction proceCdings u/s. 12 read with s. 16 of the 
Act for the release of his shop. The appellant. a nephew of the deceased tenant, 
resisted the eviction application on the grounds : (i) that he was entitled to get 
the benefit of the amended and/or unamended seCtion 14 of the Act since he had 
been helpin!;. the deceased tenant in his business for the last several years and 
remained in continuous possession of the disputed shop after his deat~ and 
(2) that he was an heir of the deceased tenant on the basis of a will executed by 
the deceased tenant in his favour and therefore he was a tenant within the 
[!leaning or section 3(a) of tho Act. 
B 
c 
D 
t 
E 
F 
G 
• 
' ' 
890 
SuPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1985) 1 S.C.R· 
The Rent Control and Eviction Officer rejected the application holding 
that the appellant was entitled to get the tenancy rights under the unan1ended 
s. 14 of the Act. In revision the Additional District Judge held that, since even 
after the death of Naubat Singh on 31st August 1974, the appellant had been 
permitted to continue in possession of the premises, he got the benefit of amend· 
ed s. 14 of the Act and therefore dismissed the revision petition Thereupon the 
landlord filed a writ petition under Article 226 in the High Court against the 
orders of the two authorities below. The High Court negatived all the conten· 
tions of the appellants, allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders of the 
authorities below and directed the Rent Control and Eviction Officer to decide 
the release application afresh in accordance with the law. Hence this appeal by 
special leave. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : (I) Admittedly Naubat Singh was the tenant of the shop on the 
date immediately preceding the commencement of the Act, that is, 15th July 
1972 and he was alive and therefore no question of the appeUant being regulari-
sed as a tenant arises. 
T11e appellant also could not get the benefit of amended 
sec. 14, since at the relevant time the application for release filed by the landlord 
against the appellant was pending in the court of Additional District Judge by 
way of revision petition wherein the landlord had contested the claim of tenancy 
by appellant. [893 H; 894 B-C] 
(2) The word 'heir' bas been construed both in a wider as well as in a 
narrower sense. Which sense will be applicable to the facts of a particular case 
will depend upon the intention and scheme of a particular legislation in which 
the question occurs. [89' G] 
Smt. Rukmani Devi v. III Addi. District Judge, Kanpur (I) 1977 ARC 72 
and Munni Lal v. Smt. Shiva Devi 1981 ARC (S.N. 13); referred to 
Gulzara

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