SHAYAM BABU versus DISTRICT JUDGE, MORADABAD & OTHERS

Citation: [1984] 2 S.C.R. 30 · Decided: 14-12-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
30 
• 
SHAYAM BABU 
1'. 
DISTRICT JUDGE, MORADABAD. & OTHERS 
December 14, J 983 
[D.A. DESAI°,, R.B. MISRA AND RANGANATH. MISRA, JJ.) 
• 
. Uttar Pradesh Urban Buihli11gs (R~gulation oj Letting-, Rent a.nd EviCtion) Act 
1972-.s. 21 fourth proviso-:-!nterpreiaiion Of-1¥hether protects suh-te11a1Jt. 
The respondeht-landlords had Jet out a shop to a' tenant who had, with 
· the consent of the landlords, sub-let the sa1ne to t!ie appellant. The landlords 
n1oved an applfoation~ under.s. 21 of the Uttar Prade;h _Urban Building') (R~gula­
tion of LettiOg, P ... ent nnd, Eviction) Act, 1972 against the tenant and· the sub·-
tenant fo1' telease of the pren1ises on. the ground of bo.natidC· require1nent. 
The 
Presc_ribed ·authority allowed the application against the appellant'.and disn1issed 
agµinst the tenant. 
In appeal the District ... udge. con-finned the order Of the pre." 
scribed .authority. 
In ~·writ "petition tlic app~llant ci}'allenged the·order of the 
District Judge. The High Court dis1nisScd the writ petition observing that the 
fourth proviso to s.21 conteJr.plated. the consid.efation of the likely hards~ip of 
the .tenant or the landlord only rind not of the sub-tenant. Hence this appeal. 
Allowi11g. the ap'Peal, 
HELO: All that the relevant proviso t~~ s.21 requires is ti1at the con1-
parative hardship of the tenant_ as. al<:o that of the landlord shall .b~ t"airen..,into · 
aCco"unt before passing any order of release or refusal to rrlease. If ~he sub-
. tenancy had been created withollt the consent Or the landlord tl1e position 1night 
have been different. 'f.he sub:tenanf for .the purp0ses of the fourth proviso to s.21 
would virtually b~ a.tenant inasn1uch as rent is payble by hi1n to the tenant-in-
~ chief, who to all intents and pu:·poses will be a ·JandJord qua the sub-tenan't. To 
interpret the section in the way (l._I; the High Court has interpreted would be 
· defeati'rrg the very sa-lut~ry purpose 01 the A.ct. f33 l-1.; 34 A-BJ 
Bbul!an Singh v: Bah11 Ra111 ( 1965) A.L.J. 544 referred to~· 
~ In the instant case, the appellant· was entitled to the .Protection of the 
fourth proviso to s. 2i and the coJnparativc hardship of the appell~nt as well as 
that of the landlords should have been taken into account before disposing of an 
ipplication undcr·s.21 of the A~t. The Courts bl~low ha\1:! failed to excrci'se 
jurisdiction vested in 'then1 in not considering ·the likely h<>rdship of t[1P: 
appellant .. [34 C-DJ 
CIVIL ArPELLATE)lcRISDICTION : Civi.1 Ajopeal N.o. 230 of 1978. 
·From the Judgment and Order.dated 19th January, 1978 of the 
) 
•• 
., 
'f' 
' 
• 
'' 
SHYAM BABU ": lllSTT. JUDGE (Misra, J.) 
31 
High Court of Jadicature at Allahabad in _Civil Misc. Writ No. 355 
of 1977". 
Yoge;hwar basad and Mrs. Rani Chabbra, for the App~llant 
J.P. Goyal, Ra.f.esh and S.K. Jain for the Resp011dents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
MISRA, J. The present appeal by special leave is directed against 
the judgment dated 19th_ of January, 1978 of the Allahabad- High 
Court. 
The sh'Ort question for <;onsideration in this appeal i's whe~ 
A 
B 
ther a sub-tenant is entitled to the protection of the fourth proviso 
C 
·to s.21 oft\ie Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, 
Rent and Eviction) Act, 19.72. 
Th~ material fact' to. bring·out the point for consideration lie 
in a narrow·c~mpass. 
One' Murari Lal was the owner of the dis-· 
puted ~hop .. During his lifetime a partition took place betwee;1 him 
D 
and the other ·members of his family iri 1937. 
The shop in dispute 
fell to the share.of Murar.i Lal and Narendr.a Mohan, his eldest son. 
,;\fter the d~ath of Murari Lal in 1960 his interest devolved upon his 
sons·Rajendra KumH.and'Brijendra Kumar along with their brother 
Narendra Mohan . 
• 
It appears thar the shop in suit had been let ~ut to one Krishan 
Klllnar. 
He in his turn inducted Shyam Babu, the 'present appe-
llant, as his sub-tenant Ill 1962. 
Rajendra Kumar and Brijendra 
K'1m:tr liled a suit No. 181 of 1968 in the Court of Munsif for the 
evi~tion of the original tenant as wel I as the sub-tenant, on the grourrd 
of i \legal subletting as also for the recovery of arrears· of rent. That 
suit \vas co11tested by the ten.ant its well as the sub-tenant on the 
ground ihat.the sub-tenancy had been created with the consent of 
the then landlord and therefore subletting \vas legal. 
The leatn~d Mu.nsif dismissed the·suit by his order dated. 

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