VINAYA KUMAR SHUKAL versus LAKHPAT RAM AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1990] 3 S.C.R. 965 · Decided: 22-08-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. SAIKIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

VINA YA KUMAR SHUKAL 
v. 
A 
) 
LAKHPAT RAM AND ANOTHER 
AUGUST 22, 1990 
[K.N. SAIKIA AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
B 
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) 
Act, 1972: Section 29-A, sub-sections (4), (5) and (71-'Such rent as 
~"'-
may be mutually agreed upon between the parties'-Interpretation of-
Rent agreement entered into prior to commencement of s. 29-A-
Whether bars determination of rent after the incorporation of s. 29-A- -c 
Expression 'may be'-Scope of. 
In 1957, the appellant let out a plot of land to Respondent No. 1 at 
an annnal rent of Rs. 170. Respondent No. l constructed a building on 
'°>-' 
the plot of land in 1968, with the consent of the appellant. Aller the 
insertion in 1976 of Section 29-A in the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regula-
D 
lion of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, appellant filed an applica-
lion before the delegated authority under the Act for rrxation of 
appropriate rent for the said land under Section 29-A(S) of the Act. The 
application was dismissed by the authority on the ground that Section 
29-A(S) was applicable only to those cases in which there was no agreed 
rent and since the parties, by mutual agreement,_ have accepted the 
E 
;; 
annual rent at Rs.170 there was no question of rer.xation of the rent. 
Aggrieved, the appellant filed ~ Writ Petition in the High Court, 
which was dismissed. 
~ 
The appellant has preferred this appeal, by special leave, against 
F 
the said order of the High Court. 
" 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD: I. The words "such rent as may be mutually agreed upon 
between the parties" in sub-section (4) of Section 29-A of the U.P, 
G 
Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 
envisage an agreement with regard to rent entered by the landlord and 
tenant aller the coming into fOrce of Section 29-A. An agreement prior 
to the commencement of Section 29-A would not preclude determina-
~ lion of rent under sub-section (S) of Section 29-A. Generally, the words 
'may be' are much ollener used with reference to the future than the 
H 
965 
A 
B 
966 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
I 1990] 3 S.C.R. 
past or present. In sub-section ( 4) of Section 29-A the words 'may be' 
are preceded by the word •as' and are followed by the words 'mutually 
agreed upon' which indicate that the words are used with reference to 
the future. The provisions of sub-section (7) which give overriding effect 
to the provisions of section 29-A over an existing contract also lend 
support to this construction. The High Court was not correct in holding 
the view that there could be no enhancement of the rent under sub-
section ( 5) of Section 29-A in view of the agreement between the appel-
lant and the tenant that the tenant shall pay rent at the rate of Rs.170 
per annum. (970A-D I 
- • 
Trilok Chand v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer & Anr., 
C 
(1988] I R.C.R. 633; approved. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Brown v. Batchelor, 25 L.J., Ex. 299; referred to. 
Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, 5th Edn. p. 1575; referred to. 
2. The Judgment and order of the High Court dated February 19. 
1990 as well as the order dated April 14. 1978 passed by the Delegated 
Authority are set aside and the matter is remanded to the Delegated 
Authority for consideration of the application submitted by the appel-
lant for fixation of rent under Section 29-A of the Act in accordance 
with law. (970E-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5933 
of 1983. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.2.1980 of the Allahabad 
High Court in Civil Misc. Petition No. 5860 of 1978. 
R.K. Jain, Ms. Abha R. Sharma and R.P. Singh, for the 
Appellant. 
M.C. Dhingra for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.C. AGRAWAL, J. This appeal by special leave involves the 
question as to the interpretation of the provisions of Section 29-A of 
the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) 
Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 
-
• J 
) 
( 
V.K. SHUKAL v. LAKHPAT (AGRAWAL, J.] 
967 
The Act was enacted by the U .P. State legislature to provide, in 
the interest of the general public, for the regulation of letting and rent 
of, and the eviction of tenants from certain classes of buildings situated 
in urban areas, and for matters connected therewith. The Act, as 
originally enacted, was confined in its application to buildings only. It 
was amended by U.P. Act XXVIII of 1976 whereby Section 29-A was 
inserted with a view to give protection ag

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