LexRAMESH CHAND versus PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A RAMESH CHAND v. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY & ANR. JULY 27, 1989 B IM.H. KANIA AND L.M. SHARMA, JJ.) ~ Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972-Section 43(2)-Landlord bound by undertakings- cum-assurances given by him while seeking permission to file suit for eviction of tenant. ~- c In 1959 the landlord filed an application under section 3(1) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent & Eviction Act, 1947 for the eviction --+ of the tenant from the shop on the ground that the landlord wanted to demolish the shops in the ·building including the shop of the appellant/ tenant and in their place wanted to construct new shops and residential D portion on the first Door. In the application the landlord gave an assur- ance (undertaking) that be would give new shop to the tenant/appellant after the new shops were constructed, at a reasonable rent. This appli- cation was contested by the appellant/tenant alongwith other tenants. The application was made to the District Magistrate u/s 2(d) of the U.P. Rent Act, 1947. The Rent Controller and Eviction Officer who acted as E District Magistrate under the said Act granted the permission and rejected the contentions of the tenants. Against this decision all the tenants filed revision petitions which were dismissed by the commis- sioner Rohilkhand Division, Bareilly. The tenants preferred further - ~ revision to the State Govt. u/s 7-F of the said Act. In diSposing of the revision petitions the Special Secretary noted that the landlord had ., F given an undertaking to the tenants that they would be given newly constructed shops on standard rent and that during the period taken for construction alternative accommodation would be given to them. Thereafter the landlord f'Iled a suit on the basis of the. permission for eviction of the tenants. During the pendency of the suit the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 came G into force. The U.P. Rent Act of 1947 was repealed and some amend- ments were made to section 43(2)(rr) in the U.P. Rent Act of 1972 whereby the landlords who had on the basis of permission granted to them u/s 3(1) of the U.P. Rent Act of 1947 instituted suits for the eviction of the tenants were given the right to apply for eviction of their tenants straightaway if the permission wanted to them under section H 3(1) of the U.P. Rent Act of 1947 bad been obtained on any grouiid 560 RAMESH CHAND v. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY 561 ·~ specif"ied in sub-section (I) or sulHectioll (2) of section 21 or the U.P. A Rent Act of 1972. Taking advantage of these provisions, the landlord filed an application for an order of eviction u/s 43(2)(rr) of the U.P. Rent Act 1972. The Prescribed Authority dismissed the application of the landlord on the ground that the permission obtained by him was condi- ·-4 tional permission and it would come into operation when the landlord B bad complied with the offer made by him and untill then be could not claim eviction of the tenant u/s 43(2)(rr) of the U.P. Rent Act, 1972. Against that order the landlord preferred a writ petition in the High ' Court of Allahabad. The High Court took the view that the Prescribed -~ Authority was bound to allow the application of the landlord u/s 43(2) (rr) and order eviction. Against this judgment the tenant-appellant .. came up by way of special leave. In setting aside the order of the High c Court, this Court in allowing the appeal, HELD: One of the circumstances which constituted the basis for the grant of the permission to file the suit for eviction was that the landlord gave an assurance-c:um-undertaking to give the newly cons- D tructed sbops to the tenants sought to be evicted including the tenant in the appeal and that the landlord also gave a similar assurance to give alternative accommodation to the tenant during the period which would J be taken in completing the new Con.truction. Nothing is found lo the provisions of Se<:tion 43(2)(rr) of the U.P. Rent Act of 1972 which would enable the landlord to evade bis duty to comply with the undertaking- E cum-assurances given by him. The undertaking-aun-assurances given ~ by the landlord in the instant case certainly formed part of the basis on which the permission to file suit for eviction was unconditionally given to him. It .is but fair that the Court should see to it that the tenant is not ~- deprived of the bene
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.