SAMAR PAL SINGH versus CHITRANJAN SINGH

Citation: [2015] 12 S.C.R. 798 · Decided: 28-09-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 798 
SAMAR PAL SINGH 
v 
CHITRANJAN SINGH 
(Civil Appeal No. 7988of2015) 
SEPTEMBER 28, 2015 
[DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, 
c Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972: s.20( 4) and its proviso- Eviction 
suit - Non-payment of rent - Tenant deposited arrears of 
rent, interest etc. in the court - Trial court passed eviction 
decree - High Court set aside the eviction decree on the 
ground that tenant was entitled to protection provided u/sub-
D section (4) of s.20 as the properties acquired by tenant were 
commercial - On appeal, held: A building which can be used 
for residential as well as commercial purposes cannot be 
said to be excluded from the clutches of proviso to sub-
section ( 4), if built, or acquired in vacant state within limits of 
E the municipal area in which the house from which eviction is 
sought by the landlord-As such, the High Court erred in law 
in reversing the eviction decree. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 20 
of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 allows a landlord to seek 
eviction of tenant from a building after determination of 
his tenancy, on the ground that the tenant is in arrears 
G of rent for not less than four months, and has failed to 
pay the same to the landlord within one month from the 
date of service of notice of demand upon him. But sub 
section (4) of Section 20 protects the tenant from decree 
of eviction if he deposits entire arrears of rent with nine 
H 
798 
SAMAR PAL SINGH v CHITRANJAN SINGH 
799 
percent interest and costs before date of first hearing in A 
the suit. From the language of sub-section (4) of Section 
20, it is clear that under the proviso it is provided that 
nothing in the sub-section could apply in relation to a 
tenant who or any member of whose family has built or · 
has otherwise acquired in a vacant state, or has got B 
vacated after acquisition, any residential building in the 
same city. The High Court has held is that the proviso 
deprives the tenant of the protection under sub-section 
(4) only if he has acquired residential building. The 
evidence on record clearly showed that only property C 
no. 621 and property no. 42 were shops. The record 
reveals that property no. 43 consists of two rooms, one 
hall on the ground floor, and one room with Sehan on 
the first floor and property no. 72 consists of five rooms. 0 
There is no specific finding that the nature of these two 
buildings is exclusively commercial. The High Court has 
erred in law by treating these two properties as 
commercial without there being evidence to that effect. 
The building in question was let out for residential-cum-
E 
commercial purposes. It cannot be said that object of 
sub-section (4) of Section 20 is to protect those tenants 
who have built, or acquired in vacant state a house which 
can be used for residential as well as commercial 
purposes. If word "residential" mentioned in the proviso F 
is taken to mean what has been interpreted by the High 
Court, the object of the proviso would get defeated. As 
such, the High Court has erred in law iri reversing the 
eviction decree passed by the Judge Small Cause Court. 
[Paras 8, 12, 13] [802-F-G; 804-E-H; 805-A-C, E] 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
7988 of 2015 
From the Judgment and Order No. dated 20.12.2011 of 
H 
'· 
800 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 12S.C.R. 
A the High Court of Judicature atAllahaba.d in Civil Revision No. 
8 
8of1990 
· 
Dinesh Kumar Garg, Dhananjay Garg, Deepak Mishra, 
Abhishek Garg,Advs. for the Appellant. 
Nikhil Jain, Adv. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. This appeal is girected 
c against judgment and order dated 20.12.2011, passed by the 
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Revision No. 8 
of 1990 whereby the revision filed by the defendant No.1 is 
allowed, and order of eviction against the tenants passed by 
Judge, Small Causes Court/Xth Additional District Judge, 
D Meerut, is set aside. 
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and 
perused the papers on record. 
3. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff No.1/appellant 
E is owner and landlord of house bearing municipal no. 831 (old 
no. 446), situated in Mowana, District Meerut. The house was 
let out to Nawab Singh (father of the respondents) and a rent 
note (Annexure P-2) was executed on 15.02.1975. The build

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