# Amarjeet Singh v. Smt. Shiv Kumar Yadav

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 474
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-05
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 3023 of 2024
- **Bench:** Ashutosh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amarjeet-singh-v-smt-shiv-kumar-yadav-51665
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Tenancy Law - UP Regulation of Urban
Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 - Ss. 4 and
21(2) - Maintainability of proceeding -
Neither tenancy agreement was executed
nor information regarding tenancy was
given to the Rent Authority - 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
3 All. Amarjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Shiv Kumar Yadav
475
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 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 11)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of cases cited :-

## Text

474 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Chapter XI A deals with study leave and it
is to be read conjointly and not separately.

13. In case, the Government Servant
having less than 5 years of service has been
granted the study leave, suppose for a
period of 12 months and the duration of the
course has been extended by 6 months or
one year or more, in that case if the
application for extra leave is moved by a
Government Servant then the competent
authority cannot reject the same on the
ground that the Government Servant has
not completed five years of service so the
extra leave could not be granted. The
period of service is to be seen initially at
the time of grant of study leave not at the
time of granting extra leave beyond 12
months which could normally be given as
per Rule 146 A (3).

14. There is no force in the
submission that condition of completion of
5 years of service before grant of leave
applies only for grant of extra study leave
and not in a case where leave is initially
applied for. The whole reading of the
provision under Chapter XI-A clearly leads
to the conclusion that restriction of 5 years
completed service would be applicable to
the initial study leave as well. Otherwise, it
would mean that if initial leave granted and
requires extension for any reason then there
has to be a gap of certain period before
completing of 5 years service for extra
leave. This would not be intention of the
provision nor it seems to be practicable.
The restriction of 5 years completion of
service would more relevant for a fresher as
in the present case who has joined the
service a few months back and is still on
probation. It cannot be said that for grant of
initial study leave condition of completion
of 5 years of service would not apply but it
will applicable for extra study leave. This
argument does not appeal to reason. The
whole Chapter XI-A has to be read
harmoniously to achieve the purpose of the
provisions.

15. In view of the facts, circumstances
and discussion made hereinabove and as
the petitioner has completed only six
months of services that too on probation
her application has rightly been rejected by
the respondent no. 2 by placing reliance on
Rule 146 A (2) of the Chapter XI A of the
Financial Hand Book Volume 2 Part 3.

16. Writ petition is devoid of merit,
hence dismissed.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 474
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.03.2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ A No. 3023 of 2024

Amarjeet Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Shiv Kumar Yadav ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ms. Rama Goel Bansal, Ms. Shalini Goel

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Tenancy Law - UP Regulation of Urban
Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 - Ss. 4 and
21(2) - Maintainability of proceeding -
Neither tenancy agreement was executed
nor information regarding tenancy was
given to the Rent Authority - 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
3 All. Amarjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Shiv Kumar Yadav
475
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 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 11)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of cases cited :-

1. SCC Revision No. 158 of 2022; Amit Gupta Vs
Gulab Chandra Kanodia decided on 15.5.2023

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

1. Heard Ms. Rama Goel "Bansal"
and Ms. Shalini Goel, learned counsel for
the petitioner.

2. The challenge in this petition is to
the order dated 29.03.2023 passed by the
Rent
Authority/Additional
District
Magistrate, Agra as also the order dated
15.12.2023
passed
by
the
Rent
Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court
No. 13, Agra whereby and whereunder the
preliminary
objections
of
the
tenant/petitioner about the maintainability
of the proceedings under Section 21 (2)
have been rejected and time for filing
written statement has been granted by the
Rent Authority.

3. The issue raised in this writ petition
is purely legal and the Court proceeds to
decide the petition on the submissions of
the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the materials available on record without
calling upon the respondent.

4. This Court vide order dated
27.2.2024 after hearing Ms. Shalini Goel,
learned counsel for the petitioner and
recording her submissions had required her
to bring on record the reply filed by the
landlord/respondent to the objection taken
by
the
tenant/petitioner
to
the
maintainability of the application under
Section 21 (2) of the U.P. Act No. 16 of
2021.

5.

Learned
counsel
for
the
tenant/petitioner has filed supplementary
application
bringing
on
record
the
objections of the landlord/respondent dated
10.2.2023.

6. From the perusal of the legal
objections taken by the tenant/petitioner
which have been brought on record as
Annexure-7 to the petition, it is borne out
that neither the applicant or the opposite
party had been allotted the unique number
and no digital platform was created by the
State Government under the Act of 2021
and the application was thus premature, the
tenancy
had
been
terminated
vide
registered Notice dated 8.2.2022 and hence,
only the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try
the case, the jurisdiction of the Rent
Authority under the Act is confined to the
tenancy agreement submitted to it. The
tenant/petitioner was ready to execute the
Tenancy Agreement, but the opposite party
deliberately and mala fide failed to supply
the proforma of the Tenancy Agreement
and further that the Notice dated 8.2.2022
was invalid as single notice in respect of
two independent tenancies had been given.

7. The reply to the legal objections
taken by the tenant/petitioner brought on
record along with the supplementary
affidavit
submitted
by
the
landlord/respondent reveals that request to
execute the Tenancy Agreement and
provide all information through the Notice
dated 8.2.2022 was sought but the
476 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
tenant/petitioner failed to comply and
violated the provision of Section 4 (3) of
the Act and an application for eviction of
the tenant/petitioner under Section 21 (2) of
the Act of 2021 was maintainable.

8. From the perusal of the legal
objection taken by the tenant/petitioner and
the reply of the landlord/respondent, the
legal
position
as
regards
whether
information to the Rent Authority in the
form specified in the First Schedule by the
landlord is a sine quo non for maintaining
an application under Section 21 (2) of the
Act of 2021, is not clear.

9. A perusal of the provisions
contained in Section 4 of the Act, which
relates to Tenancy Agreement reveals that
sub-section (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. Sub-section
(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.

10. 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 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
sub-section 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 eviction of the tenant. Sub-section 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
3 All. Amarjeet Singh Vs. Smt. Shiv Kumar Yadav
477
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. Subsection (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.

11. 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
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.

12. Ms. Shalini Goel, learned counsel
has placed reliance upon a decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Amit
Gupta versus
Gulab
Chandra
Kanodia, SCC Revision No. 158 of 2022
decided on 15.5.2023 to submit that the
Court in Para 96 of the said decision has
observed that the jurisdiction of the Rent
Authority under the 2021 Act is limited to
dispute relating to Tenancy Agreement
submitted to it as specified in the First
Schedule. If no agreement in writing as per
Section 4 (3) has been submitted, then the
tenant can be evicted only in one condition
that is where landlord has submitted details
as per First Schedule, but the tenant has
failed to discharge his obligation vide
proviso to Section 4 (3) of the 2021, Act.
However, if the landlord also fails and so
also the tenant to comply with Section 4
(3), no eviction of the tenant has been
provided for. The observation is being
quoted hereunder:-

"96. In earlier part of this
judgment, I have already referred to scope
and ambit of the provisions of the new
Tenancy Act, 2021 with reference to
individual sections therein and I have also
discussed the tenancy agreement referrable
to Section 4 of the new Act. During
discussion in respect of point no. (a) above,
I found, while 11 months unwritten
agreement tenancy was conceived under
the new Act but the remedial aspects so as
to enable land lord to seek eviction of
tenant had not been touched by the
legislature.
Section
38(2)
defines
jurisdiction of Rent Authority and limits it
to dispute relating to tenancy agreement
submitted to it as specified in the first
schedule. First schedule agreements are
there that create tenancy after new Tenancy
Act has come into existence and also the
written tenancy agreements that were in
existence when the new Act came into
force, provided such agreements were
submitted to the Rent Authority as per
Section 4(3) of the new Act. The word
"tenant" though includes old tenant at the
time of enforcement of the new Act vide
478 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Section 2(j) but only for agreement in
writing as per Rule 4 (3) and if there is no
agreement in writing as per Rule 4(3), such
tenant can be evicted only in one condition
that is where land lord has submitted details
as per first schedule but tenant has failed to
discharge his part of obligation vide
proviso to Section 4(3) of the new Tenancy
Act. However, if land lord also fails and so
also the tenant to comply with Section 4(3),
no eviction of tenant has been provided
for."

13. I have gone through the
observation made by the co-ordinate Bench
in the decision cited by Ms. Shalini Goel.
In the case cited, the issue before the Court
were:-

"(a). Whether a Small Cause Suit
already instituted, since prior to coming
into force of the new Tenancy Act, 2021
and so also such SCC revision arising
therefrom would stand saved or the SCC
suit and SCC Revision being not mentioned
in the repeal and saving clause of Section
46, the proceedings of such suit and
revision would stand abated; and

(b). Whether the bar created
under Section 38 of the Tenancy Act is not
an absolute one and so Small Cause Suit
for arrears of recovery of Rent and Eviction
(SCC Suit) and SCC Revision arising
therefrom would still be maintainable even
after the enforcement of the New Tenancy
Act, 2021 qua the of tenancies not covered
by tenancy agreements provided for under
Tenancy Act, 2021."

14. The issued urged in this petition is
as to whether information to the Rent
Authority in form specified in the First
Schedule by the landlord is a sine qua non
for maintaining an application under
Section 21 (2) of the Act. The observation
made by the co-ordinate Bench reproduced
hereinabove does not help the petitioner
inasmuch as, it ignores the import of
Section 4 (7) of the Act. The import of the
Section 4 has been explained in the
preceding paras of this order.

15. The present proceedings are at a
stage where the preliminary objections of
the
tenant/petitioner
about
the
maintainability of the proceedings under
Section 21 (2) have been rejected and time
for filing written statement has been
granted by the Rent Authority. A challenge
to it before the Rent Tribunal has failed.

16. In view of the discussion made
hereinabove, the Court is not inclined to
entertain the petition. It is devoid of merits
and is accordingly dismissed. The interim
order granted earlier is discharged.

17. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 478
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.03.2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 3436 of 2024

Smt. Meenakshi Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sanjeev Singh, Sri Shailendra Kumar
Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Kaushlesh Pratap Singh

A. Service Law - UP Government Servant
(Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1999 -