Aligarh Muslim University

Session 2020-21

AN ASSIGNMENT WORK
(MID-SEM)
of

LOCAL LAWS
On

Submitted by: -
Submitted to:
BILAL ABDULLAH BHAT
SEMESTER :- X

En. No :- GI - 1860
R.no :- 16 BALLB - 21
 SYNOPSIS

 INTRODUCTION

 CHAPTER 4: REGULATION OF EVICTION

 SECTION 20:- Bar of suit for eviction of tenant except on specified grounds

 GROUNDS OF THE SUIT FOR EVICTION

 FIRST HEARING OF THE SUIT

 CONCLUSION

 BIBLIOGRAPHY
INTRODUCTION

UTTAR PRADESH URBAN BUILDING (REGULATION OF LETTING, RENT &

EVICTION) ACT, 1972 is generally known as the Act No. 13 of 1972, which came
into force on 15th day of July 1972. The Act has been enacted in the interest of the
general public by the regulation of letting and renting of, and the eviction of tenants
from, certain classes of buildings, situated in urban areas and for matters connected
therewith. The Act has been enforced with prospective effect. The person claiming the
benefit under this Act is applicable to the matter concerned or relief claimed.

CHAPTER 4: REGULATION OF EVICTION:

Chapter 4 of this Act is very important as it contains the provisions regarding the
rights and duties of both the tenant and the landlord in regard to the tenanted premises.
It contains the provisions in regard to the grounds of eviction of the tenant from the
tenanted premises, the release of the building under the tenant, appeal of such order
and the right of re-entry of the tenant, here we are concerned with the analysis of the
provisions relating to the grounds of eviction of tenant from the tenanted premises by
the landlord, the same is discussed below.

SECTION 20:- Bar of suit for eviction of tenant except

on specified grounds;-

(1) Save as provided in sub-section (2), no suit shall be instituted for the eviction of a
tenant from a building, notwithstanding the determination of his tenancy by efflux of
time or on the expiration of a notice to quit or in any other manner:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall bar a suit for the eviction of a tenant on
the determination of his tenancy by efflux of time where the tenancy for a fixed term
was entered into by or in pursuance of a compromise or adjustment arrived at with
reference to a suit,
appeal, revision or execution proceeding, which is either recorded in court or
otherwise reduced to writing and signed by the tenant.
(2) A suit for the eviction of a tenant from a building after the determination of his
tenancy may be instituted on one or more of the following grounds, namely:
(a) that the tenant is in arrears 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 upon him of a
notice of demand:
Provided that in relation to a tenant who is a member of the armed forces of the Union
and in whose favour the prescribed authority under the Indian Soldiers (Litigation)
Act, 1925 (Act No. IV of 1925), has issued a certificate that he is serving under
special conditions within the meaning of Section 3 of that Act or where he has died by
enemy action while so serving, then in relation to his heirs, the words "four months"
in this clause shall be deemed to have been substituted by the words "one year";
(b) that the tenant has wilfully caused or permitted to be caused substantial damage to
the building;
(c) that the tenant has without the permission in writing of the landlord made or
permitted to be made any such construction or structural alteration in the building as
is likely to diminish its value or utility or to disfigure it;
(d) that the tenant has without the consent in writing of the landlord used it for a
purpose other than the purpose for which he was admitted to the tenancy of the
building or otherwise done any act which is inconsistent with such usE, or has been
convicted under any law for the time being in force of an offence of using the building
or allowing it to be used for illegal or immoral purposes;
(e) that the tenant has sublet, in contravention of the provisions of Section 25, or as
the case may be, of the old Act the whole or any part of the building;
(f) That the tenant has renounced his character as such or denied the title of the
landlord, and the letter has not waived his right of re-entry or condoned the conduct of
the tenant;
(g) That the tenant was allowed to occupy the building as part of his contract of
employment under the landlord, and his employment has ceased.
(4) In any suit for eviction on the ground mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2), if
at the first hearing of the suit the tenant unconditionally pays or 4 [tenders to the
landlord or deposits in court] the entire amount of rent and damages for use and
occupation of the building due from him (such damages for use and occupation being
calculated at the same rate as rent) together with interest thereon at the rate of nine per
cent per annum and the landlord's costs of
the suit in respect thereof, after deducting therefrom any amount already deposited by
thetenant under sub-section (1) of Section 30, the court may, in lieu of passing a
decree for eviction on that ground, pass an order relieving the tenant against his
liability for eviction on that ground:
Provided that nothing in this subsection, shall 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 vacated after acquisition, any residential building in the same city, municipality,
notified area or town area.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section-
(a) The expression "first hearing" means the first date for any step or proceeding
mentioned in the summons served on the defendant;
(b) The expression "cost of the suit" includes one-half of the amount of counsel's fee
taxable for a contested suit.
(5) Nothing in this section shall affect the power of the court to pass a decree on the
basis of an agreement, compromise or satisfaction recorded under Rule 3 of Order
XXIII of the First
Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
(6) Any amount deposited by the tenant under sub-section (4) or under Rule 5 of
Order XV of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall be paid to
the landlord forthwith on his application without prejudice to the parties' pleadings
and subject to the ultimate decision in the suits.1
U.P. URBAN BUILDINGS ACT, 1972 imposes bar for filing a suit for eviction under
subsection (1) of Section 20. But this very subsection (1) provides for exceptions on
the grounds of which a suit for eviction can be filed by the landlord against the tenant
from the building under tenancy. Those grounds have been provided in the provisos of
Section 20 (1).

1
UTTAR PRADESH URBAN BUILDING (REGULATION OF LETTING, RENT &
EVICTION) ACT, 1972, BARE ACT,
https://www.casemine.com/act/in/5a9cce474a932653478133da
GROUNDS OF THE SUIT FOR EVICTION

The grounds of suits on the basis of which a tenant can be evicted from the building
under tenancy are as follows:-
The suit can be instituted for eviction of tenant on determination of the tenancy by
efflux of time where the tenancy for a fixed term was entered into by or in pursuance
of a compromise or adjustment arrived at with reference to a suit, appeal, revision or
execution proceeding which is either recorded in court or otherwise reduced to writing
and signed by the tenant.
This provision has been made under proviso to Section 20(1).
In DINDAYAL v. DINDAYAL, it has been observed that only on the basis that the
landlord has determined the tenancy of the tenant, the cause of action for eviction of
the tenant does not arise, unless one or more of the grounds mentioned in Section 20(2)
exist.2
In Smt. Dayawanti v. CANTONMENT, MEERUT, it has been held that the bar of
Section 20(1) does not apply to the buildings which have been exempted from the
enforcement of the Act.3
The suit for eviction can also be instituted by the landlord against the tenant from the
building under tenancy on the grounds mentioned under Section 20 (2). These
grounds are as follows:-
1. Tenant is in arrears of rent for not less than four months;
2. Tenant wilfully causing substantial damage to the building;
3. Tenant making construction or structural alteration in the building;
4. Tenant using building for a different purpose;
5. Tenant subletting the building in breach of Section 25;
6. Tenant renouncing the character of the landlord; &
7. Tenant’s employment has ceased.
2
1979 A.W.C. 317

3
1983 (1) A.R.C. 473
(1) TENANT IS IN ARREARS OF RENT FOR NOT LESS THAN FOUR
MONTHS:-

Where the tenant is in arrears of rent for not less than 4 months & the tenant has failed
to pay the arrears of the rent to the landlord within one month from the date of service
of notice of demand, the landlord can institute suit for eviction of the tenant from the
building under tenancy. A proviso has been added to this clause which is to the effect
that if the tenant is a member of the armed forces and he is serving under special
circumstances within the meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act,
1925, or where such tenant shall be deemed to have been substituted by the words one
year.
In Smt. KRISHNA DEVI &OTHERS v. MAHAVIR PRASAD & OTHERS, the
court held that eviction on ground of arrears of rent, when notice received by the
tenant he was not defaulter of four or more months as rent had already been deposited
by him.
Tenant not liable to be evicted.4

(2) TENANT WILFULLY CAUSING SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE TO THE

BUILDING:-

Where the tenant has caused or permitted substantial damage to the building, a suit
for, the eviction of a tenant from the building after the determination of his tenancy
may be instituted.
In MOHENDRA KUMAR v. PARASRAM GOEL, in case of material alteration
Allahabad High Court held that giving totally a new look and a different shape and
complexion of the tenanted premises by material alteration would certainly be
regarded as one involving material impairment of that premises which affects its
fitness for use for desirable practical purpose.5

4
2009 (1)ALJ (NOC) 48 (ALL)

5
2016 (144) ALR 33(H.C.)
(3) TENANT MAKING CONSTRUCTION OR STRUCTURAL ALTERATION
IN
THE BUILDING:-

Where the tenant has made or permitted to be made any such construction or
structural alteration in the building as is likely to diminish its value or utility or to
disfigure it, the landlord has been made entitled to institute the suit for eviction
against the tenant. Such construction or structural alteration must be made with the
permission in writing of the landlord.

(4) TENANT USING BUILDING FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE:-

Where the tenant has used the building under tenancy for a purpose other than the
purpose for which the building was let out to the tenant or otherwise done any act
which is inconsistent with such use, or the tenant has been convicted under any law
for the time being in force of an offence of using the building or allowing it to be used
for illegal or immoral purposes, the landlord can file a suit for eviction of the tenant.
The use of the building by the tenant must be done without consent in writing of the
landlord.

(5) TENANT SUBLETTING THE BUILDING IN CONTRAVENTION OF

SECTION 25:-

Where the tenant has sublet the building or part thereof in contravention of Section 25
of this Act or the provisions of the old Act, to any other person, the landlord can
institute a suit for eviction of the tenant.

In MALIK MOHD. V. 5th A.D.J. ALIGARH held that if the tenant has sublet the
building or any part thereof under his tenancy to any person after the enforcement of
this Act then the landlord can institute the suit for eviction of the original tenant and
the sub-tenant also.6

6
1981 A.C.J. 158
In HABIBUR RAHMAN v. 4th A.D.J., GAZIABAD, held that burden to prove that
the tenant has sublet the building or part thereof under his tenancy to a person lies on
the landlord.7
In SHARDA DEVI v. 1st A.D.J., AZAMGARH, held that if the building or part
thereof has been let out by the original tenant prior to the date of enforcement of this
Act & the sub-tenant continues to remain in possession then, the landlord can file a
suit for eviction against the original tenant as well as sub-tenant also if there is any
contravention of the provisions of the old Act, 1947.

(6) TENANT RENOUNCING THE CHARACTER OF THE LANDLORD:-

If the tenant has renounced the character of the landlord or denied the title of the
landlord from the building under his tenancy, then the landlord can institute a suit
against the tenant subject to the condition- (a) the landlord has not waived his right of
re-entry from the building in dispute; (b) the landlord has not condoned the conduct of
the tenant.

In MOHD. ARIF v. A.D.J., held that if the landlord proves only the renouncement or
denial of title of landlord and does not prove the waiver of his right to e-entry or
condonation of conduct of the tenant, then the suit for eviction of tenant will not
succeed and it will be dismissed.8

(7) TENANT’S EMPLOYMENT HAS CEASED:-

Where a building or part thereof was provided to the tenant on the basis of contract of
employment, then on the termination of service of the tenant, the suit for eviction of
tenant can be instituted by the landlord on the ground that the tenant’s employment
has ceased.

7
1983 U.P. R.C.C. 281
8
1984 (2) A.R.C. 255
FIRST HEARING OF THE SUIT

SECTION 20(4) of this Act provides for the first hearing of the suit. This provision
has been made to confer one more occasion to the defaulting tenant to deposit the
arrears of rent, etc, so that the tenancy may be permitted to continue. This subsection
provides for the payment of the entire arrears of land at the first hearing of the suit
unconditionally.

In MAN CHAND PAL v. Smt. SHANTI AGARWAL & OTHERS, S.C. held that the
meaning of the date of first hearing is well settled and it means the date on which the
court applies its mind to the facts and controversy involved in the case. Any date prior
to such date would not be the date of first hearing when the court is to apply its mind
to the facts of the case.9

In Smt. NIRMALA DEVI & OTHERS v. A.D.J., LUCKNOW & OTHERS, held that
if the tenant wants to deposit under Section 20(4) on the very first date of hearing
before the court of law, can only be deposited by the tenant whenever the provisions
of this Act apply.10

In VED PRAKASH WADHWA v. VISHWA MOHAN, held that the date of first
hearing would not be before a date fixed for preliminary examination of the parties
and framing of issues. If the amount is deposited before that date of first hearing it
would amount to compliance with the relevant provisions of the Act.11
In SUDARSHAN DEVI & ANOTHER v. SUSHILA DEVI & ANOTHER, held that
the date fixed for hearing of the matter was the date of first hearing and not the date
fixed for filing of the written statement.12
In LALA RAM AVTAR v. 2nd A.D.J. BULANDSHAHR, the tenant has the
premises to his real brother for residential purposes; it was held that as per Section 3(g)

9
2002 (470 A.L.R.1

10
2008 VOL 26 L.C.D. 62
11
AIR 1982 S.C. 816
12
1999 (37) A.L.R. 496 (S.C.)
of this Act family does not include brother meaning thereby it will be treated as
subletting and a ground for eviction.

In RAM MURTI YADAV v. RISHAB KUMAR DUBEY, held that Mr. who is the
creator of the will only assigned Mr. to collect rent from the tenant thus he is only the
agent of A. a has not renounced the ownership nor his status of landlord but only
instructed the tenant to pay the rent to C. will created new rights in favor of MR.B
who is entitled to institute the suit for eviction.13

In OM PRAKASH v. VAISH DHARAMSHALA SABHA & OTHERS, held that a

postman is a Govt. servant and there is a presumption of correctness though rebuttable
for an act performed by the Govt. servant in discharge of his official duty. A
presumption of correctness is attached in the face of endorsement refusal that money
order was refused by the addressee. Therefore the court held that there is no rent in
the eyes of law so the tenant cannot be ejected on the ground of not paying the rent
amount.14

In AYODHYA PRASAD GUPTA v. ORATAP CHANDRA MEHRA & OTHERS,

held that a perusal of records shows that it was the specific case of the landlord that
his son used to manage the property on his behalf and the petitioner also admitted that
he used to pay the rent to his son. Therefore mere non examination of the landlord,
would not disentitle landlord of any relief.15

In NAND LAL @ NAND RAM v. RAJA RAM, held that petitioner is entitled to get
the benefit of Section 20(4) as he has not deposited damages, advocate fee and cost of
suit, therefore it is not the full compliance of Section 20(4).16
In ABDULLA v. A.D.J. / SPECIAL JUDGEM JYOTIBA PHULE NAGAR &
OTHERS, held that tenant is liable to evicted along with the payment of rent and
damages as he has opened the door in the rented premises without the authority of the

13
2008 (2) A.R.C. 584

14
2008 (1) A.R.C. 368
15
2010 (1) A.R.C. 825
16
2010 (1) A.R.C. 127
landlord thus a substantial damage or a diminishing the value of the shop has been
done.17

CONCLUSION

From the above discussion it is clear that Section 20 of UTTAR PRADESH URBAN
BUILDING (REGULATION OF LETTING, RENT & EVICTION) ACT, 1972 has
been enacted to safeguard the respective interests of both the landlord and tenant in
regard to the tenanted premises, and their rights and duties are in accordance with the
natural law principles.

17
2011 (2) A.R.C. 669
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

 UTTAR PRADESH URBAN BUILDING (REGULATION OF LETTING,

RENT & EVICTION) ACT, 1972, BARE ACT,

 ALLAHABAD RENT CONTROL CASES, 2008 VOL 1 &2,

 ALLAHABAD RENT CONTROL CASES, 2010 VOL 1,

 ALLAHABAD RENT CONTROL CASES, 2011 VOL 2.