NIRBHAI KUMAR versus MAYA DEVI & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 4 S.C.R. 1052 · Decided: 24-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · 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 
r2009J 4 s.c:R. 10s2 
NIRBHAI KUMAR 
v 
MAYA DEVI & ORS. 
Civil Appeal No. 1767 of 2005 
MARCH 24, 2009 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA 
AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, 
Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Section 21(1)(a), proviso -
Scope and ambit - Held: The proviso provides for period of 
three years as a moratorium for protection of tenant - If a 
landlord who purchased a building seeks to evict the sitting 
tenant then he is required to wait for 3 years after the date of 
purchase - However notice of eviction can be given either 
before or after 3 years period - After expiry of 3 years period, 
protection to tenant from eviction is lifted - View expressed in 
. Martin case was correct - Rent and Eviction. 
Martin & Harris Ltd. v. Vlth Additional District Judge and 
Ors. 1998 (1) SCC 732; Anwar Hasan Khan v. Mohd. Shafi & 
Ors. 2001 (8) SCC 540 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
1998 (1 > sec 732 
referred to 
Para 1 
2001 (8) sec 540 
referred to 
Para 1 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1767 
of 2005 
From the Judgement and Order dated 23.09.2004 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Recall 
Application No. 109257 of 2004 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 
14154 of 2001. 
Dinesh Divedi, Shalini Kumar, Neeru Vaid, with him for 
the Appellants. 
1052 
--
·i 
.,.__ 
.... 
i 
-' 
' 
~ 
NIRBHAI KUMAR V. MAYA DEVI & ORS. 
1053 
'"\~ 
Latika Kaushik, Narish Kaushik, Arnita Chaudhary, for the A 
Respondents. 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 
1. Noticing that there were two conflicting decisions of this B 
Court in Martin & Harris Ltd. v. Vlth Additional District Judge 
......., 
~ 
and Ors. [1998 (1) SCC 732] and Anwar Hasan Khan v. Mohd . 
Shafi & Ors. [2001 (8) SCC 540], reference was made to larger 
' 
Bench. 
. 
c 
• 
' 
2. The case decided by two Hon'ble Judges of this Court 
in both the cases related to the scope of and ambit of proviso to 
Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of 
Letting, rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the 'Act'). As 
~· 
directed by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India,- the m~tter D 
has been placed before us. 
3. In Martin and Harris Umited's case (supra) it was held. 
in para 13 as follows: 
"It is not possible to agree with the contention of the E 
learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the provision 
+ 
containing the proviso to Section 21 (1) of the Act was for 
public benefit and could not be waived. It is, of course, 
true that it is enacted to cover a class of tenants who are 
sitting tenants and whose premises are subsequently F 
purchased by landlords who seek to evict the sitting 
tenants on the ground of bona fide requirement as 
envisaged by Section 21( 1 )(a) of the Act, still the protection 
available to such tenants as found in the proviso would 
1 
give the tenants concerned a locus poenitentiae to avail 
G 
of it or not. It is easy to visualise that proceedings under 
Section 21 (1)(a) of the Act would be between the landlord 
·on the one hand and the tenant on the other. These 
proceedings are not cf any public nature. Nor any public 
interest is involved therein. Only personal interest of 
landlord on the one hand and the tenant on the other hand H 
1054 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
get clashed and call for adjudication by the prescribed 
,.... 
1 
authority. The ground raised by the landlord under Section 
21(1)(a) would be personal to him and similarly the 
defence taken by the tenant would also be personal to 
him. Six months' breathing time is given to the tenant after 
8 
service of notice to enable him to put his house in order 
and to get the matter settled amicably or to get alternative 
accommodation if the tenant realises that the landlord has 
a good case. This type of protection to the tenant would 
!'--
~ 
naturally be personal to him and could be waived. In this 
,.
c 
connection we may profitably refer to a decision of this 
Court in the case of Krishan Lal v. State of J&K(1994 
(4)SCC 422) wherein Hansaria, J., speaking for a Bench 
of two learned Judges has made the pertinent observa-
tions concerning the question of waiver of a mandatory 
D 
provision providing for issuance of notice to the parties 
sought to be proceeded against by the person giving the 
notice, in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Report as under: 
(SCC p. 430) 
"16 . ... As to when violation o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.