MOHD. ASIF NASEER versus WEST WATCH COMPANY THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR

Citation: [2020] 4 S.C.R. 1173 · Decided: 24-04-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1173
MOHD. ASIF NASEER
v.
WEST WATCH COMPANY THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR
(Civil Appeal No. 2375 of 2020)
APRIL 24, 2020
[R. BANUMATHI AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent
and Eviction) Act, 1972:
s.21(1)(a) – Application under – For release of tenanted
shop – Allowed by Prescribed Authority holding inter alia that the
landlord had given six months prior notice to the tenant as required
under Proviso to s. 21(1)(a) that the need of the landlord was
bonafide – Order affirmed by appellate authority – High Court in
writ petition dismissed the release application holding inter alia that
no notice of eviction was given to the tenant and that there could
be no presumption of service of notice sent “under certificate of
posting” – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: Mere receipt of notice
having been sent “under certificate of posting”, in itself, may not
be sufficient proof of service – But, if the same is coupled with
other facts and circumstances showing that the party had notice,
it can be held to be sufficient service on the party – The facts and
circumstances of the present case as considered by Prescribed
Authority and affirmed by appellate authority show that there was
sufficient proof of service of notice – There was no reason for the
writ court to unsettle such concurrent finding of fact – The finding
as regards comparative hardship has not been categorically upset
by High Court.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The primary reason for allowing the Writ
Petition was that  there could be no presumption of service of
notice as required under the Proviso to Section 21(1)(a) of the
Rent Control Act. From the perusal of the aforesaid Proviso to
the said Section, it is clear that no particular mode of giving notice
by the landlord to the tenant has been provided for, meaning
thereby that the same could be given orally or in writing; and if
   [2020] 4 S.C.R. 1173
1173
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1174
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
in writing, it is not necessary that it should be sent only by
registered post. What is required is that “the landlord has given
a notice in that behalf to the tenant”. [Paras 10 and 12] [1179-
C; 1180-D]
1.2 The Prescribed Authority, while recording the finding
that the tenant was given notice for eviction, has considered the
various facts leading to the recording of such finding. It is not
that the Prescribed Authority has drawn a presumption of the
notice having been served merely because it was said to have
been sent under certificate of posting. The Prescribed Authority
has held that  the “respondent (tenant) while admitting the
applicant as landlord had filed the application under Section 30(1)
to deposit the rent in the Court”. The Prescribed Authority
recorded that it was after the notice had been sent in the year
2006 that an application under Section 30(1) of the Rent Control
Act was filed by the respondent (tenant) in the year 2007 for
deposit of rent in Court, after which, the suit was filed by the
appellant in the year 2008. The said suit was admittedly after
three years of the Sale Deed, which was executed on 29.10.2004.
It was in this factual background that the Prescribed Authority
held that the notice of six months required under Section 21 of
the Rent Control Act was duly given by the landlord to the tenant
before filing of the suit in the year 2008. The respondent-tenant
had admitted the appellant as his landlord and filed an application
to deposit rent in Court in the year 2007. It is not disputed that
photocopy of the receipt dated 25.07.2006 of having sent the
notice under certificate of posting was filed by the appellant
(landlord) along with an affidavit before the Prescribed Authority;
and the application of the respondent (tenant) for filing the
carbon copy (instead of photocopy) of the receipt of under
certificate of posting, was rejected by the Prescribed Authority
on 21.04.2011, which Order had become final, as the same had
not been challenged by the tenant and, thus, there was no
occasion for the appellant to file the carbon copy of the receipt
of under certificate of posting. [Para 13] [1180-E-H; 1181-A-B]
1.3 Section 34 of the Rent Control Act provides for the
Prescribed Authority to receive evidence on affidavit. Therefore,
the evidence adduced on affidavit was admissible before the
Prescribed Authority. In the facts of the present case, when the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1175
appellant (landlord) had filed the photocop

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