MAHESH KUMAR AGARWAL (DEAD) BY LRS versus NARESH CHANDRA & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 668 · Decided: 08-12-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
668
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
   [2021] 9 S.C.R. 668
MAHESH KUMAR AGARWAL (DEAD) BY LRS
v.
NARESH CHANDRA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7554 of 2021)
DECEMBER 08, 2021
[K.M. JOSEPH AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and
Eviction) Act, 1972 – Proviso to s.21 – Proceedings for release of
building under occupation of tenant – On 22.12.2007, the appellant-
landlord gave respondents-tenants notice u/s.21(1)(a) of the Act –
In the said notice, it is inter alia stated that tenancy of the tenant was
being terminated within 30 days of the receiving of the notice and
the tenant was asked to hand over the possession – In reply to the
notice, the respondents did not raise any objection based on the
requirements in the proviso to s.21 – On 20.11.2008, an application
was filed u/s.21 of the Act before the Rent Controller – The Rent
Controller ordered eviction of the respondents – The respondents
appealed before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed –
The respondent filed writ petition before the High Court on the sole
ground that the appellant-landlord had not complied with the
requirement under the proviso u/s.21(1)(a) insofar as no notice of
six months was given prior to the filing of the application – On
appeal, held: On facts, it is much after the period of six months of
the notice given by the appellant that the proceeding was instituted
– The notice served was in conformity with the proviso to s.21 –
Further, the respondent has not raised objection relating to defective
notice in reply to legal notice, in the written statement before the
Rent Controller or before the Appellate Court – Therefore, the
objection relating to defecting notice is now capable of being waived
– Thus, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside – The
order of the Rent Controller, as affirmed by the Appellate Authority
is restored with the modification that the appellants will pay a sum
of Rs.30,000/- to the respondents in terms of the second proviso to
s.21 of the Act.
668
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
669
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. This Court has noticed the facts. Indeed, it is
much after the period of six months of the notice given by the
appellant that the proceeding has been instituted. This Court, in
fact, inclined to take the view that the notice which has
been served would be in conformity with the proviso. [Para 7]
[673-E-F]
2. In view of the judgment of this Court in Martin & Harris
Ltd., where this Court has taken the view interpreting the very
same provision with which instant case is concerned, that the
objection relating to defective notice is capable of being waived,
this Court is of the view that the appellant should not be denied
the benefit of the said view. It is further noticed that, on facts, the
present case stands on a more sturdier footing. In Martin & Harris
Ltd., the tenant had, in fact, raised objection, which he did not
press, whereas, in the facts of this case, the tenant has not raised
any objection in not only the reply notice, but even in the written
statement before the Rent Controller. What fortifies this Court
further is that even in the appeal before the appellate Court, the
tenant did not urge the ground. If at all there is a case for waiver,
this would be one. [Para 9][676-E-G]
3. However, under Section 21 of the Act, in respect of a
non-residential premises or a building let out exclusively for non-
residential purpose, an order for payment of an amount not
exceeding two months’ rent as compensation is called for. In this
case, admittedly, a building was let out exclusively for non-
residential purposes. In terms of the said proviso, having heard
learned senior counsel, this Court is inclined to order that the
appellants shall pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the respondents.
[Paras 10 and 11][676-G-H; 677-C]
Martin & Harris Ltd. v. Vith Additional Distt. Judge
(1998) 1 SCC 732 : [1997] 6 SCR 380 – relied on.
Nirbhai Kumar vs. Maya devi & Ors. (2009) 5 SCC
399 : [2009] 4 SCR 1052 – referred to.
MAHESH KUMAR AGARWAL (DEAD) BY LRS v.
NARESH CHANDRA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
670
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
[1997] 6 SCR 380
relied on
Para 4
[2009] 4 SCR 1052
referred to
Para 8
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.7554
of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.10.2016 of the High Court
of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition (M/S) No.2315 of 2016.
Senthil Jagadeesan, Sajal Jain, (Amicus Curia
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.