# Alok Gupta v. District Judge Rent Tribunal & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 1601
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-12
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 2030 of 2024
- **Bench:** Ashutosh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/alok-gupta-v-district-judge-rent-tribunal-ors-51754
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Tenancy Law - U.P. Regulation of Urban
Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 - Sections 3
(iii),
3(iv),
21(1)
&
21(2)
-
Fresh
ejectment proceeding u/s 21(1) was
initiated after withdrawal of earlier SCC
Suit - Maintainability - Held, it is the
prerogative of the landlord/respondent to
have
either
continued
with
the
proceedings of the SCC Suit No. 28 of
2014 or initiate fresh proceedings under
the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021. The provisions
of the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021 does not bar
initiation of fresh proceedings under the
Act if proceedings for the same relief are
pending under other enactments. (Para 9
and 16)

B. Tenancy Law - U.P. Regulation of Urban
Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 - Ss. 3(iii),
3(iv), 21(1) and 21(2)
- Ejectment
proceeding - Premises owned by Public
Religious or Charitable Trust/Institution,
extent of applicability of the Act -
Maintainability of ejectment application
was challenged - No notification was
issued - Relevance - Held, the mandate of
the Section 3(iii) is to exempt the
applicability of the Act to premises owned
by Religious or Charitable Institution as
may be specified by the notification by the
St. Government. The Rent Tribunal found
that no such Notification by the St.
Government has been issued or filed on
record - Likewise Section 3(iv) provides
exemption to premises owned by a Waqf
registered under the Waqf Act 1995 or by
any Public Trust under applicable law. The
respondent no. 3 on the owning saying of
the tenant petitioner is a Private Trust and
as such properties owned by it are not
exempt. In the opinion of the Court there
is no error or illegality in the conclusion
drawn by the Rent Tribunal. (Para 12 and
15)

C. Tenancy law - U.P. Regulation of Urban
Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 - S. 31 -
Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 -
Failure
of
Rent
Authority
to
make
reference for settlement - No material to
demonstrate that a settlement of the
dispute was ever sought and pressed, was
produced - Effect - Held, the reference is
not mandatory in all cases. Besides,
settlement of dispute being an voluntary
act is required to be availed and pressed -
Non compliance of the provision of Section
31 of the Act is not fatal to the
proceedings and the impugned orders
cannot be set aside on this ground. (Para
18 and 19)

D. Tenancy law - U.P. Regulation of Urban
Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 - Ss. 4 and
21(2)
-
Ejectment
proceeding
-
Maintainability
-
Neither
tenancy
agreement was U.P.loaded nor the same
was informed to the tenant and straight
away notice was served U.P.on the
tenant/petitioner
to
execute
Tenancy
Agreement on unrealistic rent - Effect -
Held, a conjoint reading of the various
sub-sections of Section 4 of the Act
reveals that the intention of legislature for
requiring both the landlord and the tenant
to inform to the Rent Authority in the form
specified in the First Schedule within a
certain
time
frame
is
to
treat
the
information as conclusive proof of the
facts relating to the tenancy and matters
1602 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
connected with it - It does not appear to
be the sine qua non for maintaining an
application u/s 21 (2) of the Act - Where
the
tenancy
is
admitted,
no
such
information as contemplated u/s 4 of the
Act is warranted. (Para 20 and 23)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

## Text

4 All. Alok Gupta Vs. District Judge Rent Tribunal & Ors.
1601
(2024) 4 ILRA 1601
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ A No. 2030 of 2024
With
Connected cases

Alok Gupta ...Petitioner
Versus
District Judge Rent Tribunal & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sharad Malviya

Counsel for the Respondents:
Deepak Kumar

A. Tenancy Law - U.P. Regulation of Urban
Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 - Sections 3
(iii),
3(iv),
21(1)
&
21(2)
-
Fresh
ejectment proceeding u/s 21(1) was
initiated after withdrawal of earlier SCC
Suit - Maintainability - Held, it is the
prerogative of the landlord/respondent to
have
either
continued
with
the
proceedings of the SCC Suit No. 28 of
2014 or initiate fresh proceedings under
the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021. The provisions
of the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021 does not bar
initiation of fresh proceedings under the
Act if proceedings for the same relief are
pending under other enactments. (Para 9
and 16)

B. Tenancy Law - U.P. Regulation of Urban
Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 - Ss. 3(iii),
3(iv), 21(1) and 21(2)
- Ejectment
proceeding - Premises owned by Public
Religious or Charitable Trust/Institution,
extent of applicability of the Act -
Maintainability of ejectment application
was challenged - No notification was
issued - Relevance - Held, the mandate of
the Section 3(iii) is to exempt the
applicability of the Act to premises owned
by Religious or Charitable Institution as
may be specified by the notification by the
St. Government. The Rent Tribunal found
that no such Notification by the St.
Government has been issued or filed on
record - Likewise Section 3(iv) provides
exemption to premises owned by a Waqf
registered under the Waqf Act 1995 or by
any Public Trust under applicable law. The
respondent no. 3 on the owning saying of
the tenant petitioner is a Private Trust and
as such properties owned by it are not
exempt. In the opinion of the Court there
is no error or illegality in the conclusion
drawn by the Rent Tribunal. (Para 12 and
15)

C. Tenancy law - U.P. Regulation of Urban
Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 - S. 31 -
Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 -
Failure
of
Rent
Authority
to
make
reference for settlement - No material to
demonstrate that a settlement of the
dispute was ever sought and pressed, was
produced - Effect - Held, the reference is
not mandatory in all cases. Besides,
settlement of dispute being an voluntary
act is required to be availed and pressed -
Non compliance of the provision of Section
31 of the Act is not fatal to the
proceedings and the impugned orders
cannot be set aside on this ground. (Para
18 and 19)

D. Tenancy law - U.P. Regulation of Urban
Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 - Ss. 4 and
21(2)
-
Ejectment
proceeding
-
Maintainability
-
Neither
tenancy
agreement was U.P.loaded nor the same
was informed to the tenant and straight
away notice was served U.P.on the
tenant/petitioner
to
execute
Tenancy
Agreement on unrealistic rent - Effect -
Held, a conjoint reading of the various
sub-sections of Section 4 of the Act
reveals that the intention of legislature for
requiring both the landlord and the tenant
to inform to the Rent Authority in the form
specified in the First Schedule within a
certain
time
frame
is
to
treat
the
information as conclusive proof of the
facts relating to the tenancy and matters
1602 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
connected with it - It does not appear to
be the sine qua non for maintaining an
application u/s 21 (2) of the Act - Where
the
tenancy
is
admitted,
no
such
information as contemplated u/s 4 of the
Act is warranted. (Para 20 and 23)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashutosh
Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sharad Malviya, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Shri Deepak
Kumar as well as Shri Ashish Kumar
Srivastava, learned counsels for the
landlord/respondent no.3.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner
is permitted to delete the respondent nos.
1 and 2 from the array of parties.

3. The petitioners of first set of writ
petitions are tenants of different shop
numbers
situated
in
building
No.
CK62/19, 20, 21 and 22 Kashipura
(West), Ward Chowk, Tehsil and District
Varanasi, whereas, the petitioners of
second set of the writ petitions are
tenants of different shop numbers situated
in building B-30/5A, Vikram Building,
situate at Lanka-BHU, Main Road,
Varanasi.

4. The writ petition arise out of the
proceedings undertaken under the U.P.
Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy
Act, 2021 ( UP Act No. 16 of 2021).

5. The controversy involved in both
sets of the writ petitions are similar in
nature and the impugned orders have
been assailed on identical grounds.
Hence, with the consent of the parties all
the writ petitions are being finally
decided at the admission stage itself.

6. The writ petition, being Writ A No.
2030 of 2024, is being treated as the
leading
writ
petition
and
the
facts
pertaining to the same are being considered
for deciding the controversy involved.

7. The writ petition, being Writ A No.
2030 of 2024, at the instance of the Tenant/
Petitioner has been filed assailing the order
dated 16.01.2024 passed by the Rent
Tribunal/ District Judge, Varanasi, in Rent
Appeal No. 145 of 2023, whereby and
whereunder the Rent Appeal has been
dismissed
and
order
of
the
Rent
Authority/Additional District Magistrate
(City), District- Varanasi, dated 30.06.2023
allowing the Release Application registered
as Case No. 290 of 2023 has been upheld
and the petitioner has been directed to
vacate the shop No. 29 under his tenancy.

8. It is the case of the petitioner that he
is a tenant of shop No. 29 situate in
premises No. CK62/19, 20, 21 and 22
Kashipura (West), Ward Chowk, Tehsil
and District Varanasi at a monthly rent of
Rs. 230/- inclusive of Sewer and water
charges. The respondent no. 3 is his
landlord. The petitioner has paid the entire
rent of the shop till July, 2013 under
receipt, however the landlord/ respondent
refused to accept the Rent from August
2013 and since then the rent is being
deposited under Section 30 (1) of the U.P.
Act No. 13 of 1972 in Misc. Case No. 28 of
2014. the Landlord/ Respondent no. 3 tried
to dispossess the Tenant/Petitioner by force
and petitioner was compelled to instituted a
suit
for
permanent
injunction
being
Original Suit No. 597 of 2014 in which
temporary injunction was granted in favour
of the petitioner that he shall not be evicted
otherwise than in accordance with law. The
respondent no. 3 thereafter filed SCC Suit
No. 28 of 2014 before the Judge, Small
4 All. Alok Gupta Vs. District Judge Rent Tribunal & Ors.
1603
Cause Court for ejectment, recovery of
arrears of rent and damages for use and
occupation. The 6 of 16 petitioner appeared
in the suit and filed his written statement.
However meanwhile the UP Act No. 16 of
2021 was enacted and the respondent no. 3
withdrew the SCC suit No. 28 of 2014.

9. After withdrawal of the SCC Suit
No. 28 of 2014, the respondent no. 3 filed
an application under Section 21 (1) of the
UP Act No. 16 of 2021 which proceedings
were registered as Application No. 290 of
2023 seeking ejectment of the petitioner
from the shop no. 29 alleging that the
petitioner is tenant of the shop no. 29 of
premises No. CK62/19, 20, 21 and 22 and
despite notice the Tenant/Petitioner has
failed to vacate the premises which was
required for rebuilding of the entire
premises under clause (f) of Section 21 (2)
of the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021. The tenant/
petitioner is in arrears of rent of Rs.
33,753/- but rent from 01.01.2021 Rs.
9120/- is claimed. It was also stated that
monthly rent of Rs. 230/- per month was
last revised in February 2010 which
reached Rs. 518/- per month under U.P.
Act No. 16 of 2021. Damages for use and
occupation pendentilite and further @ Rs.
20,000/- per month till delivery of
possession was claimed. Pursuant to the
notice issued by the Rent Authority the
Tenant/Petitioner
appeared
in
the
proceedings and filed his written statement
alleging inter alia that the rent of the shop
is Rs. 230/- per month which was never
revised by the landlord/ respondent no. 3.
Before filing of the proceedings of suit No.
28 of 2014 the rent was being deposited
under Section 30 (1) of the U.P. Act No. 13
of 1972 and after filing of the suit the
amount was being deposited in the Suit no.
28 of 2014. The suit was got 7 of 16
withdrawn on 12.11.2022 and as such on
the
date
of
the
institution
of
the
proceedings under the new Act of 2021
were not applicable as the respondent no. 3
is a Religious and Charitable Institution.

10.
The
Rent
Authority
after
considering the materials on record vide
order dated 30.06.2023
allowed
the
application under Section 21 (2) of the
U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021 and directed the
ejectment of the petitioner from the shop
No. 29 recording a finding of fact that
there existed a relationship of landlord and
tenant between the respondent no. 3 and
the petitioner. The respondent no. 3 has
served notice upon the petitioner in terms
of the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021 requiring
him to execute a Tenancy Agreement as
per the requirement of the New Act and
also demanded arrears of rent and when
the Tenant/Petitioner failed to provide the
information
sought
a
notice
dated
04.12.2022 was served terminating the
tenancy. The Rent Authority also recorded
the finding that the injunction order dated
30.10.2014 operating in favour of the
Tenant/ petitioner was of no avail to the
petitioner as the respondent no. 3 had
drawn proceedings against the petitioner
as per law and would have no bearing
upon the proceedings under Section 21 (2)
of the New Act of 2021. It also recorded
the factum that there was no written
Tenancy Agreement between the parties
nor any evidence in this regard was
brought on record during the course of the
arguments and in the absence of a written
agreement the provisions of Section 4 of
the Act has been violated. Since the
tenancy of the petitioner has already been
terminated
and
the
8
of
16
Tenant/Petitioner has not vacated the
premises the application of the respondent
no. 3 landlord in form 7 is liable to be
allowed and was allowed.
1604 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. An appeal was preferred by the
Tenant/petitioner against the order of the
Rent Authority dated 30.06.2023 before the
Rent Tribunal which was registered as Rent
Appeal No. 145 of 2023. The Rent Tribunal
under the order dated 16.01.2024 has
dismissed the Rent Appeal.

12. In the Appeal it was urged that the
provisions of the UP Act No. 16 of 2021
were not applicable and the Application
under Section 21 (2) was not maintainable
as the Landlord/ Respondent is a registered
Public Charitable Trust and the Act does
not apply to it by virtue of Section 3 (iv) of
the Act. It was also urged that the
Application under Section 21 (2) was not
maintainable in view of Section 46 (2) of
the Act inasmuch as the notice dated
22.09.2022 was given on which date the
SCC Suit No. 28 of 2014 was maintainable
and was liable to be continued as per
Section 46 (2) but the same was withdrawn
only on 07.10.2022. It was also urged that
as per Section 31 of the Act a negotiated
settlement of the dispute ought to have
been attempted by both the Rent Authority
and the Rent Tribunal and failure to attempt
the same has rendered the orders passed
illegal. It was further urged that the U.P.
Act No. 16 of 2021 contemplates existence
of a written Tenancy Agreement between
the parties. Section 4 (3) of the Act requires
the landlord to upload the details of the
tenant on the portal and thereafter inform
the tenant to get executed a Tenancy
Agreement. No Tenancy Agreement was
uploaded by 9 of 16 the Landlord/
Respondent on the portal and straight away
notice was served upon the Tenant/
Petitioner to execute Tenancy Agreement
on unreliable rent. The provisions of
Section 4 (3) were clearly violated and no
benefit could be derived therefrom by the
landlord/respondent.

13. The Rent Tribunal found that the
Tenant/ petitioner had not complied with
the provisions of Section 35 (1) Proviso
which provides that the Appellant to pre
deposit 50% of the entire payable amount
under the impugned order of the Rent
Authority. The Rent Tribunal computed the
amount to be Rs. 1,09,977/- of which 50%
was required to be deposited but the
Appellant admittedly deposited only Rs.
4600/-. It accordingly held the Appeal to be
not maintainable. The Court finds no error
in the approach adopted by the Rent
Tribunal.

14.
On
the
question
of
Landlord/Respondent no. 3 being a Public
Trust or a Religious Charitable Institution
the Rent Tribunal took note of the fact that
the
Tenant/Petitioner
had
taken
contradictory stands regarding the character
of the respondent no. 3 In the SCC Suit he
took the stand that the premises in question
was not the property of the Idol but is the
property of a Private Trust. However,
before the Rent Authority a contrary stand
was taken that the respondent no. 3 is a
charitable Religious Trust and exempted
from the provisions of the UP Act No. 16
of 2021. The Rent Tribunal on the
appreciation of the materials on record
returned a finding that no Notification
under Section 3 (iii) of the UP Act No. 16
of 2021 had been issued or if issued the
same has not been brought on record. The
Rent Tribunal accordingly concluded 10 of
16 that the Release Application under
Section 21 (2) of the Act was maintainable.

15. This Court has examined the
provisions of Section 3 (iii) and 3 (iv) of
the Act and finds that the mandate of the
Section is to exempt the applicability of the
Act to premises owned by Religious or
Charitable Institution as may be specified
4 All. Alok Gupta Vs. District Judge Rent Tribunal & Ors.
1605
by
the
notification
by
the
State
Government. The Rent Tribunal found that
no
such
Notification
by
the
State
Government has been issued or filed on
record. Likewise Section 3 (iv) provides
exemption to premises owned by a Waqf
registered under the Waqf Act 1995 or by
any Public Trust under applicable law. The
respondent no. 3 on the owning saying of
the tenant petitioner is a Private Trust and
as such properties owned by it are not
exempt. In the opinion of the Court there is
no error or illegality in the conclusion
drawn by the Rent Tribunal.

16. So far as the submission of the
learned counsel for the tenant/petitioner to
the effect that the application under Section
21 (1) of the Act was not maintainable as a
SCC Suit, being SCC Suit No. 28 of 2014
was liable to be continued in terms of
Section 46 (2) of the U.P. Act No. 16 of
2021 is concerned, the Court is of the
opinion that it is the prerogative of the
landlord/respondent
to
have
either
continued with the proceedings of the SCC
Suit No. 28 of 2014 or initiate fresh
proceedings under the U.P. Act No. 16 of
2021. The provisions of the U.P. Act No.
16 of 2021 does not bar initiation of fresh
proceedings under the Act if proceedings
for the same relief are pending under other
enactments. It is a matter of debate as to
whether the proceedings of the SCC Suit
No. 28 of 2014 could 11 of 16 or could not
continue in terms of Section 46 (2) of the
Act. However, this Court refrains from
dwelling into the said aspect for the reason
that pendency or otherwise of the suit
proceedings would not affect the present
proceedings as the Notice dated 4.12.2022
was served after the SCC suit had been
withdrawn. The submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner does not
merit consideration.

17. It is next submitted that Section 31
of the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021
contemplates negotiated settlement of the
disputes and the failure of the Rent
Authority and the Rent Tribunal to attempt
a settlement has rendered the orders passed
illegal.

18. In the opinion of the Court, a
perusal of the provision contained under
Section 31 of the Act, certain discretion is
assigned to the Rent Authority or to the
Rent Tribunal to refer appropriate cases to
the appropriate authority under the Legal
Services Authority Act, 1987 to explore a
settlement. The reference is not mandatory
in all cases. Besides, settlement of dispute
being an voluntary act is required to be
availed and pressed. The learned counsel
for the petitioner has not placed before this
Court any material to demonstrate that a
settlement
of
the
dispute
with
the
landlord/respondent was ever sought and
pressed.

19. In the opinion of the Court, the
non compliance of the provision of Section
31 of the Act is not fatal to the proceedings
and the impugned orders cannot be set
aside on this ground. 12 of 16

20. It has lastly been urged that the
provisions of Section 4 (3) of the Act,
which requires the landlord to upload the
details of the tenant on the portal and
thereafter inform the tenant to get executed
a tenancy agreement, has been violated. No
tenancy agreement was uploaded by the
landlord/respondent on the portal and
straight away notice was served upon the
tenant/petitioner
to
execute
Tenancy
Agreement on unrealistic rent.

21. A perusal of the provisions
contained in Section 4 of the Act, which
1606 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
relates to Tenancy Agreement reveals that
subsection (1) of Section 4 commences
with a non obstinate clause and as such, has
an overriding effect over the other
provisions under the Act. It provides that
no person after the commencement of the
Act of 2021 shall let or take on rent any
premises except by an agreement in writing
which shall be informed to the Rent
Authority jointly by the landlord and tenant
in the form specified in the First Schedule
provided the tenancy is not residential for a
period of less than 12 months in which case
no such information is required to be
informed to the Rent Authority. Subsection (2) relates to a situation when both
the landlord and tenant jointly fail to
inform the execution of the Tenancy
Agreement in which case the landlord and
tenant shall separately inform the Rent
Authority about execution of the Tenancy
Agreement within a specified time.

22. Sub Section (3) relates to a tenancy
created before the commencement of the Act.
Sub-clause (a) thereof deals with a situation
where an agreement in writing was entered
between the landlord and tenant in which
case they shall jointly present 13 of 16 a copy
thereof to the Rent Authority within three
months of the commencement of the Act.
Sub-clause (b) on the other hand deals with a
situation where no agreement in writing was
entered into between landlord and tenant in
which case they shall enter into an agreement
in writing with regard to that tenancy and
present the case to the Rent Authority within
three months of the commencement of the
Act. The proviso takes into consideration a
situation where the landlord or the tenant fail
to present jointly a copy of the Tenancy
Agreement or fail to reach agreement within
specified period such landlord and tenant
shall separately file the particulars about such
tenancy with the Rent Authority within one
month from the date of expiry of the period
mentioned in Clause (b) of subsection 3 of
Section 4 in the Form specified in First
Schedule. If the landlord has submitted his
particulars within the time specified but the
tenant fails to submit such particulars, the
landlord may file an application for eviction
of the tenant on that ground alone. Though
the provision visualizes a situation where a
tenant fails to comply with provisions of
submitting particulars giving the landlord a
ground to seek eviction of the tenant on the
ground of default in submitting the particulars
but the provision is silent about the outcome
of a default at the instance of the landlord.
The intention of the legislature is obvious that
it would not affect the rights of the landlord
to file for eviction of the tenant. Sub Clause 4
deals with providing the digital platform in
Hindi and English enabling submission of the
documents in such form and manner
prescribed. The Sub-section (5) of Section 4
provides that the Rent Authority after
receiving information about the execution 14
of 16 of Tenancy Agreement along with the
documents specified in the First Schedule
shall provide a Unique Identification Number
to the parties. The Sub-section (6) of Section
4 provides that the terms of authorization of
the Property Manager, if any, by the landlord
to deal with the tenant shall be as agreed to
by the landlord and tenant in the Tenancy
Agreement. Sub-section (7) of Section 4
provides that the information provided under
Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) shall be
conclusive proof of the facts relating to
tenancy and matters connected therewith and
in absence of any statement of information,
the landlord may file an application for
eviction on this ground alone.

23. A conjoint reading of the various
sub-sections of Section 4 of the Act reveals
that the intention of legislature for
requiring both the landlord and the tenant
4 All. Alok Gupta Vs. District Judge Rent Tribunal & Ors.
1607
to inform to the Rent Authority in the form
specified in the First Schedule within a
certain
time
frame
is
to
treat
the
information as conclusive proof of the facts
relating to the tenancy and matters
connected with it. It does not appear to be
the sine qua non for maintaining an
application under Section 21 (2) of the Act.
Where the tenancy is admitted, in the
opinion of the Court, no such information
as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act
is warranted. Where the tenancy or its
terms are disputed, it is always open for the
parties to adduce evidence in support of
their respective cases before the respective
authorities.

24. The Court finds no merit in the
submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner. 15 of 16

25. Considering the totality of the
circumstances, the Court finds no error or
illegality in the order of the Rent Authority
dated 30.6.2023 as also the order of the
Rent Tribunal dated 16.1.2024 so as to
warrant any interference in the exercise of
its' extra ordinary powers under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. All the
aforesaid writ petitions lack merit and are
accordingly, dismissed.

26. Parties to bear their own costs.
----------