MUNNALAL AGARWAL versus JAGDISH NARAIN AND ORS

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 453 · Decided: 16-11-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

MUNNALAL AGARWAL 
A 
v. 
JAGDISH NARAIN AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 16, 1999 
[V.N. KHARE AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
B 
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 
1972. 
Sections 3(/c) and 5-Noticefor enhancement of rent-Effect of-Held, C 
landlord automatically becomes entitled to the enhancement of rent not 
exceeding the standard rent-Failure to exercise option under Section 5-
Ejfect of-Held, landlord can still apply for f1Xation of standard rent. 
Section 5-Notice for enhancement of rent-'Given '-Interpretation of-Held, 
to derive benefit of notice it should be delivered to tenant within 3 months D 
from date of commencement of the Act-Mere sending, dispatching or posting 
notice within 3 months is not the requirement of the Section. 
Section 5 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and 
Eviction) Act, 1972 provided a condition under which landlord could enhance E 
the rent payable to any amount not exceeding the standard rent by a notice in 
writing, given within three months from the date of commencement of the 
Act, i.e. 15.7.1972. As Section 5 was applicable, landlord sent a notice of 
enhancement of rent on 8.10.1972 which was received by the tenant on 19.10. 
1972. Since tenant failed to pay the enhanced rate of rent, landlord filed a 
suit for ejectment on the ground of default of payment of rent which was F 
decreed by the trial court. Revision filed by teuant was allowed on the ground 
that landlord was not entitled to derive any benefit of the said notice as it was 
given to the tenant after three months of the commencement of the Act Against 
the said order landlord filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution 
which was dismissed by the High Court Aggrieved by the judgement of the 
High Court, landlord has filed the present appeal. 
G 
The appellant contended that word 'given' occurring in Section 5 of the 
Act means the date when the notice was sent to the tenant and not the date 
when it was received by him; and that if notice is not given in three months 
then landlord would forfeit his right for enhancement of standard rent for all H 
·-~ 
~3 
454 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R 
A times to come; 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: l. If the interpretation as canvassed by the appellant is accepted, 
then the date on which notice was served to the tenant is immaterial and in 
B that case a tenant can be subjected to default in payment of enhanced rent. 
The word 'given' occurring in Section 5 of the U.P. Rent Act distinctly shows 
that the legislature intended that notice must actually be delivered to the tenant 
within three months from the date of commencement of the Act. Mer~ sending 
notice or dispatching or posting the notice within three months in not the 
requirement of Section 5 of the Act. What the provision of the Act 
C contemplated is that notice should be tendered, offered or handed over to the 
tenant within three months from the date of commencement of the Act and in 
case the service of notice is after three months of the commencement of the 
Act, the landlord is not entitled to take benefit of such notice. The notice of 
the landlord having been served on the tenant after expiry of three months 
D from the date of commencement of the Act the landlord was not entitled to 
take benefit of such notice. [456-C, D, E) 
2. What Section 5 provides in that by notite given within three months 
of the date of commencement of the Act, automatically the landlord becomes 
entitled to the enhancement of rent. Standard rent has been defined in Section 
E 3 (k). If the landlord has not exercised his option as contemplated under 
Section 5 of the Act, it would still be open to the landlord to apply for fixation 
of standard rent. (456-H, 457-A, E) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3122of1995. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.9.94 of the Allahabad High Court 
in C.M.W.P. No. 4986 of 1981. 
Manoj Swarup, Ms. Lalita Kohli and Ms. Maulina Swarup for the 
Appellant. 
G 
H.K. Puri for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
V.N. KHARE, J. The appellant herein is the landlord of shop No. 142, 
Mohalla Parwaran in the town of Jhansi and the respondent is the tenant of 
H the said shop on rent at the rate of Rs. I 0 per month. It appears that there 
MUNNALAL AGARWAL v. JAGDISH NARAIN [V.N. KHARE, J.] 455 
is long standing dispute between the parties regarding payment of rent with A 
the result the responde

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