# Anis v. Vaibhav Goyal & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 12 ILRA 949
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-12-11
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 19749 of 2024
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anis-v-vaibhav-goyal-ors-51366
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Tenancy Law - Eviction - Uttar Pradesh
Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy
Act, 2021 - Section 21 - It cannot be said
that the issue has not been judiciously
decided by the Prescribed Authority as
well as by the appellate authority.

In the application for eviction it has been
specifically disclosed that certain vacant land
was lying behind the shops and on the eastern
side of which there was a lane and the landlord
wanted to convert the area into godown but the
lane was not wide enough to make it possible
for the heavy vehicle to move in and out which
would have made the downloading/ uploading
and transportation of iron bars etc. impossible.
The map of the area was also placed before the
Prescribed Authority to which the Prescribed
Authority very much referred to in its finding
part. The tenant has of course, denied the
averments but the denial is very evasive. (Para
13)

The rent authority has also discussed the map
filed by the landlord and held the need of the
landlord to be genuine so also to get the shops
demolished to utilize the entire area as godown
to open two wide gates to facilitate entry of
heavy vehicles. This finding has come to be
affirmed in appeal and appellate court has also
discussed these aspects of the matter. (Para 14)

B. The court has to look into only this
much as to whether there is a genuine
need of the landlord to get the building
demolished
and
reconstruct
for
his
personal use and if he sets up a case then
such an application would be maintainable
within the meaning of Section 21(2)(m) of
the Act. Clause (m) provides for landlord to get
the building vacated and to use it by raising new
construction after demolition. Clause (m) does
not get qualified from any such proviso as
contained u/s 21(2)(e) of the Act. (Para 12,
17)

Section 21(2)(e)
of
the
Act,
clearly
provides for entertaining an application
for eviction on the ground of construction/
rebuilding/ alteration/ demolition in respect of
the premises or any part thereof and it would
not be possible without getting the premises
vacated. The first and second proviso
provide for a statutory right to the tenant
to re- enter the tenancy to occupy the
premises and how this right is not
absolute. (Para 16)

C. Merely for any procedural flaw an
application has been entertained, if the
proceedings did not suffer from any vice
of inherent lack of jurisdiction of the
court, the mere entertainability of such
application and thereafter, the decision
thereupon would not render the judgment
bad much less a nullity. (Para 20)

Regarding noncompliance of Rule 7 of the
Rules, it is said that it relates to procedural part
of the Act and for any procedural infirmity, if
application
was
not
entertainable,
then
objection ought to have been taken at very
initial stage. Petitioner having not taken any
950 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
objection at the stage of Prescribed Authority
would be taken to have submitted to the
proceedings and therefore, cannot be permitted
to raise objection at the stage of appeal.
Besides this, the purpose for certain details and
documents that are required for an eviction
application to bear, is only for the purposes of
facilitating copies to the tenant/respondent and
to provide him full knowledge for which the
application has been filed. (Para 18)

Once the tenant files his written objection to the
eviction application, it will be taken that he is
fully aware of the facts and therefore, it was his
opportunity now to allege that the facts were
wrong or that the application was misconceived.
(Para 19)

Writ petition dismissed .(E-4)

## Text

12 All. Anis Vs. Vaibhav Goyal & Ors.
949
accordance with law. The appellant may
have further rights in terms of Section 23A
of the HMA, noted above.

41. Leaving those courses open to the
appellant, the appeal is dismissed. No
order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 949
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 19749 of 2024
With other connected cases

Anis ...Petitioner
Versus
Vaibhav Goyal & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ajay Kumar Singh, Ashish Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Vinay Sharma

A. Tenancy Law - Eviction - Uttar Pradesh
Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy
Act, 2021 - Section 21 - It cannot be said
that the issue has not been judiciously
decided by the Prescribed Authority as
well as by the appellate authority.

In the application for eviction it has been
specifically disclosed that certain vacant land
was lying behind the shops and on the eastern
side of which there was a lane and the landlord
wanted to convert the area into godown but the
lane was not wide enough to make it possible
for the heavy vehicle to move in and out which
would have made the downloading/ uploading
and transportation of iron bars etc. impossible.
The map of the area was also placed before the
Prescribed Authority to which the Prescribed
Authority very much referred to in its finding
part. The tenant has of course, denied the
averments but the denial is very evasive. (Para
13)

The rent authority has also discussed the map
filed by the landlord and held the need of the
landlord to be genuine so also to get the shops
demolished to utilize the entire area as godown
to open two wide gates to facilitate entry of
heavy vehicles. This finding has come to be
affirmed in appeal and appellate court has also
discussed these aspects of the matter. (Para 14)

B. The court has to look into only this
much as to whether there is a genuine
need of the landlord to get the building
demolished
and
reconstruct
for
his
personal use and if he sets up a case then
such an application would be maintainable
within the meaning of Section 21(2)(m) of
the Act. Clause (m) provides for landlord to get
the building vacated and to use it by raising new
construction after demolition. Clause (m) does
not get qualified from any such proviso as
contained u/s 21(2)(e) of the Act. (Para 12,
17)

Section 21(2)(e)
of
the
Act,
clearly
provides for entertaining an application
for eviction on the ground of construction/
rebuilding/ alteration/ demolition in respect of
the premises or any part thereof and it would
not be possible without getting the premises
vacated. The first and second proviso
provide for a statutory right to the tenant
to re- enter the tenancy to occupy the
premises and how this right is not
absolute. (Para 16)

C. Merely for any procedural flaw an
application has been entertained, if the
proceedings did not suffer from any vice
of inherent lack of jurisdiction of the
court, the mere entertainability of such
application and thereafter, the decision
thereupon would not render the judgment
bad much less a nullity. (Para 20)

Regarding noncompliance of Rule 7 of the
Rules, it is said that it relates to procedural part
of the Act and for any procedural infirmity, if
application
was
not
entertainable,
then
objection ought to have been taken at very
initial stage. Petitioner having not taken any
950 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
objection at the stage of Prescribed Authority
would be taken to have submitted to the
proceedings and therefore, cannot be permitted
to raise objection at the stage of appeal.
Besides this, the purpose for certain details and
documents that are required for an eviction
application to bear, is only for the purposes of
facilitating copies to the tenant/respondent and
to provide him full knowledge for which the
application has been filed. (Para 18)

Once the tenant files his written objection to the
eviction application, it will be taken that he is
fully aware of the facts and therefore, it was his
opportunity now to allege that the facts were
wrong or that the application was misconceived.
(Para 19)

Writ petition dismissed .(E-4)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
A.K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate assisted
by Sri Vinay Sharma, learned counsel for
the respondents.

2. These four petitions are by four
separate tenants of the same landlord and
were proceeded with for release/ eviction in
respect of the tenanted shops under Section
21(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of
Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 (in
short 'Act') on same grounds. The order of
eviction has been passed in respect of all
the tenants by separate orders passed by the
rent authority that were unsuccessfully
challenged in rent appeal. Hence these four
petitions are filed both against the order of
rent authority as well as of appellate
Tribunal.
Since
these
petitions
raise
common
question
of
fact
and
law,
therefore, they are heard and decided
together.

3. There is no dispute between the
petitioners and the landlord regarding jural
relationship
of
tenant-landlord.
The
landlord came to file release application
under Section 21(2) of the Act basically on
the plea that behind the four shops with
Chabutra in question there is an open space
of land belonging to landlord which he
wanted to use to house the stocks of iron
bars, guarders, squares etc. as godown and
further to install two gates for the exit and
entry of goods with office and washroom
on both sides. In order to raise these
constructions, he needed to demolish the
standing shops and this had become
necessary because a lane lying on eastern
side of the plot was such narrow that heavy
vehicles like Truck, Tractor and Trolley
cannot be brought in to the godown. Yet
another plea was that the constructions are
also in dilapidated stage. Thus, a personal
need for the release of the shops was set up
to convert the building to be used as
godown.

4. An objection was filed by the
tenants opposing the release and denying
the averments made in paragraph no. 2 only
to the extent that whatever has been stated
in paragraph no. 2 was not accepted. The
landlord/ respondent filed an affidavit in
evidence in support of the pleadings raised,
reiterating the stand and further filed a
document of spot map showing the location
of shop and the surroundings. The rent
authority after hearing the parties and
perusing the records, returned a finding that
respondent needed the shop in question to
be demolished to use the area of vacant plot
as godown and to install two large gates
and washroom and also office on both
sides. The court also recorded that the
landlord had placed the map and also the
income tax return in corroboration of
pleadings and thus granted the application
directing the petitioner to vacate the
tenanted
premises.
The
Prescribed
12 All. Anis Vs. Vaibhav Goyal & Ors.
951
Authority further directed for payment of
Rs. 125/- as rent to be payable from
January 2019 till the tenanted premises was
evicted.

5. This order was sought to be
challenged in appeal on various grounds
including the ground that the presentation
of application under Section 21(2) of the
Act was not in accordance with the
procedure and the format prescribed under
rule 7 of the U.P. Regulation of Urban
Premises Tenancy Rules, 2021 (in short
'Rules'). The Court of appeal has affirmed
the order passed by the Prescribed
Authority, hence these petitions.

6. Assailing the orders passed by
the Prescribed Authority as well as by the
appellate authority, learned counsel for the
petitioner Mr. Ashish Kumar Singh has
raised following points:

 (i) The Prescribed Authority as
well as the appellate authority failed to
record any finding as to the feasibility of
the plot and the area in question to be used
as a godown making it necessary to
demolish the shops, inasmuch as, there was
no finding, nor there is any measurement
provided by the landlord/ respondent as to
what exactly was the area of vacant land
behind the shop which could have been
used as godown;
 (ii) Neither the application for
eviction/ release was maintainable under
clause (e) of Section 21(2), nor clause (m)
of Section 21(2) of the Act and therefore, in
the absence of the conditions prescribed in
those clauses the release/ eviction could not
have been ordered; and

(iii)
Rule
7
of
the
Rules
prescribed for mandatory format and in the
absence
of
such
an
application
on
prescribed format, it ought not to have been
entertained as maintainable.

7. In support of his first argument,
learned counsel for the petitioner has taken
the court to the pleadings raised in eviction
application and submitted that except
making of a vacant plot behind the shops
and a very small land on the eastern side,
there is no area given of the vacant land
which could be said to be worth converting
a godown. He submitted that the averments
as made in paragraph no. 2 are vague. He
further submitted that the affidavit so filed
does not prescribed for any area. Mr. Singh
submitted that these pleadings were denied
by the petitioner vide para 17 of the written
statement
and
therefore,
in
these
circumstances the exact location of area
and the map ought to have been led in
evidence so as to make out a case for
eviction for the need so set up.

8. He has also taken the court to the
finding part of the Prescribed Authority to
allege that the Prescribed Authority has
simply relied upon the statement made and
the
affidavit
filed
and
the
certain
documents led but there is no independent
finding after appreciating those documents
and pleadings.

9. This according to Mr. Ashish
Kumar Singh does not amount to rendering
due application of mind and the findings
therefore, are liable to be held bad. He
submitted that the court of appeal also
simply affirms the order of the Prescribed
Authority and has not discussed the exact
need and the feasibility of converting
alleged available land into a godown.

10.
Advancing
the
second
argument, learned counsel for the petitioner
has taken the court to the relevant
952 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
provisions as contained under Section 21(2)
of the Act that provides ground for moving
an application for eviction of the tenants
under Section 21(1) of the Act. Mr. Singh
has placed before the Court various
grounds thereof and submitted that ground
2(e) and 2(f) and 2(m) are grounds for
eviction if the matter of demolition and
alteration, repair, reconstruction of building
was included for release/ eviction. He
argued that while ground no. (f) would not
be attracted, the ground 2(e) will be
attracted but then this ground of eviction is
qualified by the proviso which gives a right
to a tenant to re-occupy the premises with
the mutual agreement of the landlord and
the landlord having not offered for such
mutual agreement the application under
Section 21(2)(e) of the Act was not
maintainable. Regarding Section 22(2)(m)
of the Act, Mr. Singh argued that
demolition of a building is permissible
provided
if
the
same
structure
is
reconstructed.

11. Regarding third argument, Mr.
Singh has taken the Court through relevant
provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules and
contended that all those documents and
details that are required to be placed before
the rent authority in Form-7 while moving
an application for recovery of possession
was not complied with, nor even the mail
ID, whatsapp number and mobile number
was disclosed therein. Mr. Singh submitted
that these copies in duplicates were also
required to be sent to the tenant which also
was not done. it is submitted that in the
absence of non compliance of these
mandatory provisions, the application was
not maintainable.

12.
Meeting
the
submission
advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioner,
Mr.
Jain,
learned
Senior
Advocate appearing for the respondent
submitted that the court has to look into
only this much as to whether there is a
genuine need of the landlord to get the
building demolished and reconstruct for his
personal use and if he sets up a case then
such an application would be maintainable
within the meaning of Section 21(2)(m) of
the Act. He has argued that Section
21(2)(m) of the Act gives an absolute right
to the landlord to move an application for
eviction of tenant from the tenanted
premises, if he wanted its demolition for
reconstruction for his personal use. He
submitted that his case would fall either
under Section 21(2)(e) or 21(2)(f) of the
Act. It is further argued by Sri Jain that
since sufficient pleadings were placed, the
map etc. were filed before the rent
authority and there was no denial of
pleadings in the written objection, nor there
was any evidence led by the tenant to
dispute the evidence filed by the landlord,
the court was justified in decreeing the
application for eviction. Regarding non
compliance of Rule 7, Mr. Jain argued that
such an application may not have been
entertained, if any objection had been
raised. Since no objection had been raised
as to the jurisdiction of the court at the first
available opportunity before the Prescribed
Authority, this opportunity got closed and
issue could not have been opened at the
stage of appeal. He placed reliance upon
the principle contained in Section 21 of
C.P.C. where the question of jurisdiction
could
have
been
raised
or
the
maintainability of an eviction application
could have been raised at first available
opportunity.

13. Having heard learned counsel for
the respective parties and having perused
the records, in so far as the first argument is
concerned regarding non disclosure of area
12 All. Anis Vs. Vaibhav Goyal & Ors.
953
etc. of the land in question and the map etc.
much emphasis upon which was placed by
Sri
Singh,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner, I find that in the application for
eviction it has been specifically disclosed
that certain vacant land was lying behind
the shops and on the eastern side of which
there was a lane and the landlord wanted to
convert the area into godown but the lane
was not wide enough to make it possible
for the heavy vehicle to move in and out
which would have made the downloading/
uploading and transportation of iron bars
etc. impossible. The map of the area was
also placed before the Prescribed Authority
to which the Prescribed Authority very
much referred to in its finding part. The
tenant has of course, denied the averments
made in para 2 of the eviction application,
vide paragraph no. 17 of the written
objection but the denial is very evasive. He
simply denies the existence of any plot but
no where in the petition, nor in the affidavit
filed before the rent authority it has been
pleaded that the map which had disclosed
the location of the area was wrong. In the
written objection it is said that the disputed
shops were not on the western side of the
chungi but there is no denial as to the lane
on the eastern side of the vacant plot and
that the lane was very narrow.

14. Besides the above, I find that the
rent authority has discussed the map also
filed by the landlord and held the need of
the landlord to be genuine so also to get the
shops demolished to utilize the entire area
as godown to open two wide gates to
facilitate entry of heavy vehicles. This
finding has come to be affirmed in appeal
and appellate court has also discussed these
aspects of the matter. Thus, it cannot be
said that the issue has not been judiciously
decided by the Prescribed Authority as well
as by the appellate authority.
15. In so far as the second
argument is concerned, I find it apt here to
reproduce Section 21(2)(m) and (e) of the
Act which runs as under:

"(m) that the premises is required
by land lord either in its existing form or
after demolition and new construction
thereof for the purpose of its occupation by
landlord.

(e) where it is necessary for the
landlord to carry out any repair or
construction or rebuilding or addition or
alteration or demolition in respect of the
premises or any part thereof, which is not
possible to be carried out without the
premises being vacated:

Provided that after such repair,
construction,
rebuilding,
addition
or
alteration, the tenant may be allowed to
reoccupy the premises only when it has
been mutually agreed to between the
landlord and the tenant and a new tenancy
agreement has been submitted with the
Rent Authority:

Provided further that the tenant
shall not be allowed to reoccupy the
premises-

(i) in the absence of submission of
such mutual tenancy agreement with the
Rent Authority; and

(ii) in cases where the tenant has
been evicted under the orders of a Rent
Authority;"

16. From a bare reading of Section
21(2) (e) of the Act, I find it to be clearly
providing for entertaining an application
for eviction on the ground of construction/
rebuilding/ alteration/ demolition in respect
of the premises or any part thereof and it
would not be possible without getting the
premises vacated. Thus, the Act provides
for eviction of the tenant on the ground that
landlord wants reconstruction or rebuilding
954 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
or demolition of the premises and for which
naturally the tenant will have to vacate because
no reconstruction, no rebuilding or alteration or
demolition can be carried out with the tenant
sitting inside. In so far as the first proviso is
concerned, it gives a statutory right to the tenant
to re-enter the tenancy to occupy the premises
provided the landlord and tenant have mutually
agreed for the same. This mutual agreement is
also at the discretion of the landlord because if
the landlord does not want any mutual
agreement and wants not to let out the building
after reconstruction or remodeling or alteration,
then tenant cannot compel him. This further
comes to be affirmed from the second proviso
which says that in the absence of submission of
such mutual tenancy agreement with the rent
authority, tenant cannot reoccupy the premises.
Further, clause (i) and (ii) of the second proviso
make it absolutely clear that this statutory right
of the tenant is not absolute.

17. Moving to clause (m), I find that
this clause is more applicable to the facts of the
case because it provides for landlord to get the
building vacated and to use it by raising new
construction after demolition. Looking to the
averments made in eviction application, in my
considered view the application falls within
clause 21(2)(m) and therefore, the argument
advanced by Mr.Jain holds merit. The clause
(m) does not get qualified from any such
proviso as contained under Section 21(2)(e) of
the Act.

18. Coming to the last argument
regarding non compliance of Rule 7 of the
Rules suffice it to say that it relate to procedural
part of the Act and for any procedural infirmity,
if application was not entertainable, then
objection ought to have been taken at very
initial stage. Petitioner having not taken any
objection at the stage of Prescribed Authority
would be taken to have submitted to the
proceedings and therefore, cannot be permitted
to raise objection at the stage of appeal. Besides
this, I also find that the purpose for certain
details and documents that are required for an
eviction application to bear, is only for the
purposes of facilitating copies to the tenant/
respondent and to provide him full knowledge
for which the application has been filed.

19. Once the tenant files his written
objection to the eviction application, it will be
taken that he is fully aware of the facts and
therefore, it was his opportunity now to allege
that the facts were wrong or that the application
was misconceived.

20. In my considered view, merely
for any procedural flaw an application has
been entertained, if the proceedings did
not suffer from any vice of inherent lack
of jurisdiction of the court, the mere
entertainability of such application and
thereafter, the decision thereupon would
not render the judgment bad much less a
nullity. No other points have been argued
before the court on behalf of the
petitioners.

21. In view of the above, all the four
petitions are held to be devoid of merit and are
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 954
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Special Appeal No. 693 of 2024

Sudhanshu Aggarwal ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents