SMT. SUDAMA DEVI & ORS. versus VIJAY NATH GUPTA & ANR.

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 446 · Decided: 17-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
446
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018]  3 S.C.R.
SMT. SUDAMA DEVI & ORS.
v.
VIJAY NATH GUPTA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 5903 of 2012)
APRIL 17, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Rent control and eviction:
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent
and Eviction) Act, 1972: ss. 20(2)(a), 20(4) proviso – Suit for eviction
by plaintiff (respondent) against defendant (appellant) on the ground
of non-payment of arrears of rent – Eviction decree by the trial
court – In revision, eviction decree confirmed denying benefit of s.
20(4) to tenant – Writ petition by defendant also dismissed – On
appeal, held: The court has discretion to pass decree for eviction
against tenant, in case the court finds that the tenant has ensured
compliance of the requirements of s. 20(4) by depositing the rent,
its arrears and damages – Proviso to s.20(4) states that s.20(4) will
not apply, if it is proved that a tenant or any member of his family,
has either built or otherwise acquired the house in a vacant state,
or has got vacated after acquisition, any residential building in the
same city, municipality – The language of proviso being plain and
simple leaves no ambiguity therein – Thus, on facts, tenant not
entitled to take the benefit of s.20(4) because his case falls under
the proviso to sub-section(4) by virtue of the fact that his son, who
is member of family being a male lineal descendants has built his
residential house in the same city and he is in its possession –
Pursuant to eviction decree, the tenant can shift in the said house –
Thus, the reasoning and the conclusions by the courts below are
concurred with.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Reading of Section 20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh
Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act,
1972 would go to show that when a landlord files a suit against
his tenant seeking his eviction from the tenanted premises on
the ground of arrears of rent as specified under Section 20(2)(a)
[2018] 3  S.C.R. 446
                                                446
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
447
of the Act, the court has a discretion to pass a decree for eviction
against the tenant or relieve him from the rigor of the eviction
decree, in case the court finds that the tenant has ensured
compliance of the requirements of Section 20(4) of the Act by
depositing the rent, its arrears and damages together with interest
as specified therein. [Paras 19, 20] [452-G-H]
1.2 The proviso provides that sub-section(4) of Section 20
of the Act will not apply, if it is proved that a tenant or any member
of his family, has either built or otherwise acquired the house in a
vacant state, or has got vacated after acquisition, any residential
building in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area.
In order to attract the proviso, three facts need to be proved.
First, the tenant or any member of his family, as specified under
Section 3(g), has either built or otherwise acquired any residential
building; Second, such residential building is in a vacant state;
and third, such vacant residential building is situated in the same
city, municipality, notified area or town area where the suit
tenanted premises is situated. Once these three facts are proved,
the proviso would apply against the tenant disentitling him to
claim the benefit of sub-section (4) of Section 20 to avoid decree
for his eviction passed against him under Section 20(2)(a) of the
Act. [Paras 21-23] [453-B-E]
1.3 The main reason behind enacting such proviso is that
the tenant, in such circumstances, would not suffer any hardship,
if he is asked to vacate the tenanted premises pursuant to eviction
decree passed against him on the ground of arrears of rent under
Section 20(2)(a) of the Act because he or any member of his family
has built house or acquired it and got its vacant possession
situated in the same city. Such tenant can, therefore, shift in the
house of member of the family. [Para 24] [453-F]
1.4 There is no merit in the submission that it is only when
any member of tenant’s family is living with the tenant in the
tenanted premises and if he owns any vacant residential building
in the same city, the tenant can be deprived of the benefit of sub-
section(4) of Section 20 but not otherwise. The language of proviso
being plain and simple leaving no ambiguity therein, the words of
the proviso cannot be read the way counsel for the appellant wants
SMT. SUDAMA DEVI & ORS. v. VIJAY NATH GUPTA & ANR.

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