# Mahesh Chandra Agarwal v. Rent Tribunal, A.D.J. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 612
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-08
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 7791 of 2023
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mahesh-chandra-agarwal-v-rent-tribunal-a-d-j-ors-51380
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Tenancy Law - UP Regulation of Urban
Premises Tenancy Act, 2021- Sections
21(2) (m) & 35 - Eviction suit - Ground of
arrear of rent as well as of personal need
was taken - Tenant-petitioner alleged no
service of notice upon him - Rent
authority passed eviction order only after
considering the aspect of personal need -
Validity challenged - Service of prior
notice - Necessity - Held, S. 21 would
indicate that 12 grounds have been
specified for moving an application for
eviction against the tenant. Only grounds
(b), (d) and (g) provide for service of
notice prior to moving an application for
eviction - There is no requirement of
service of prior notice where eviction was
sought on the ground of personal need as
provided in clause (m) of section 21(2) of
the Act of 2021, and hence it is not
necessary
to
go
into
the
issue
of
sufficiency of notice. (Para 16 and 19)

B. Tenancy law - UP Urban Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972 - UP Regulation of Urban
Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 - Act of 1972
is replaced by Act of 2021 - Substantial
difference in the procedure - Under the
Act of 2021 an obligation is cast upon the
landlord and the tenant to enter into
agreement in writing and inform the rent
authority within two months of the said
agreement either jointly or separately
provided that the tenancy is for a period
of 12 months or more. (Para 11)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

## Text

612 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Office, Punjab National Bank, Gorakhpur
and the order dated 30.12.2021 passed by
the Zonal Manager, Human Resource
Development,
Zonal
Office,
Punjab
National Bank, Lucknow are hereby
quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated
in service forthwith and paid his current
salary regularly, month by month. It will be
open to the respondents to proceed afresh
against the petitioner from the stage of the
charge-sheet, bearing in mind the guidance
in this judgment. If the respondents elect to
proceed afresh, the petitioner shall not be
entitled to arrears of salary for the period
that he has remained out of employment,
and the question of arrears shall then abide
by the result of fresh proceedings. If,
however, no proceedings are taken, the
petitioner shall be entitled to 50% of the
arrears of his salary and all other
emoluments. In either case, if no fresh
proceedings are pursued, or these are
pursued and the petitioner reinstated,
without a terminal punishment, he would
be entitled to all other benefits of continuity
and seniority. The respondents, in the event
of taking fresh proceedings, if they find the
petitioner guilty again, shall not impose a
punishment higher than that imposed by the
orders impugned and quashed by this
Court.

23. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 612
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ-A No. 7791 of 2023

Mahesh Chandra Agarwal ...Petitioner
Versus
Rent Tribunal, A.D.J. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Nandini Verma, Aparjita Bansal

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Shresh Agarwal

A. Tenancy Law - UP Regulation of Urban
Premises Tenancy Act, 2021- Sections
21(2) (m) & 35 - Eviction suit - Ground of
arrear of rent as well as of personal need
was taken - Tenant-petitioner alleged no
service of notice upon him - Rent
authority passed eviction order only after
considering the aspect of personal need -
Validity challenged - Service of prior
notice - Necessity - Held, S. 21 would
indicate that 12 grounds have been
specified for moving an application for
eviction against the tenant. Only grounds
(b), (d) and (g) provide for service of
notice prior to moving an application for
eviction - There is no requirement of
service of prior notice where eviction was
sought on the ground of personal need as
provided in clause (m) of section 21(2) of
the Act of 2021, and hence it is not
necessary
to
go
into
the
issue
of
sufficiency of notice. (Para 16 and 19)

B. Tenancy law - UP Urban Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972 - UP Regulation of Urban
Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 - Act of 1972
is replaced by Act of 2021 - Substantial
difference in the procedure - Under the
Act of 2021 an obligation is cast upon the
landlord and the tenant to enter into
agreement in writing and inform the rent
authority within two months of the said
agreement either jointly or separately
provided that the tenancy is for a period
of 12 months or more. (Para 11)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. The petitioner being aggrieved by
the order dated 29/08/2023 passed by the
Additional District and Sessions Judge
1 All. Mahesh Chandra Agarwal Vs. Rent Tribunal, A.D.J. & Ors.
613
under Section 35 of the Uttar Pradesh
Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act,
2021 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of
2021) thereby rejecting the appeal filed by
the petitioner and upholding the order of
eviction passed by the prescribed authority
dated 14/12/2022, has preferred the present
writ petition.

2. Ms Aparajita Bansal, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner has
submitted that opposite party No. 3 is the
owner of house situated at 253/96, Nadan
Mahal Road, Lucknow which consists of 6
shops, one basement and one go-down. Out
of the 6 shops, opposite party No. 3 had let
out shop no.1 to the petitioner in 1989 and an
agreement was also entered into on 3.4.1989
creating a tenancy in his favour for 11 months
at the monthly rent of ₹ 500/-.

3. An application under section 21(1) of
the Act of 2021 was filed by the opposite
party No. 3 who is the owner of the property
in question which has been tenanted to the
petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 4000/-.
The said property is being utilised by the
petitioner for running a shop. It was further
stated that after coming into force of the Uttar
Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises
Tenancy Act, 2021, a new tenancy agreement
was submitted by opposite party no.3 to the
petitioner who refused to sign the same,
pursuant to which a notice was given on
23.11.2021 to vacate the said premises. The
legal notice was also not accepted by the
petitioner, and hence an application for
eviction was filed stating that the premises
were required for his establishment of a
business for his son. It was further stated that
the petitioner has not paid the enhanced rent
since 01.03.2021.

4. The rent authority had issued
notices to the petitioner who had put in
appearance and opposed the application for
eviction.

5. The application for eviction was
allowed by the Rent authority by means of
the impugned order dated 14.12.2022 after
recording the finding that the petitioner did
not execute the rent agreement as per the
provisions contained in the Act of 2021 nor
did he pay the enhanced rent since
01.03.2021 and consequently there was
violation of Section 9(3) of the Act of 2021.
It was further held that the petitioner has
repeatedly refused to accept the new
agreement proposed by the landlord, and
also that the landlord wanted the premises
for establishing the business / office and on
account of the aforesaid facts allowed the
application, and ordered the petitioner to
vacate the said premises in 30 days.

6. Appeal was preferred by the
petitioner before the Rent Tribunal against
the order passed by the rent authority dated
14.12.2022. In the said appeal it was
submitted that the landlord had not given
any notice as prescribed under the Act of
2021 nor was any notice received by the
petitioner and consequently he is not
entitled to enhancement of rent as prayed
for. It was further stated that agreed rent
was only Rs.500/- as per the agreement
dated 3.4.1989 and the petitioner has
already deposited the said rent.

7. Objections were filed by the
landlord to the said appeal wherein it was
stated that the petitioner has not deposited
Rs.24000/- which is fifty percent of the
outstanding rent as per the provisions of
Section 35 and consequently the said
appeal was not maintainable nor even
entertainable in the said form. It was
further stated that the rent authority had
duly taken into consideration all the facts
614 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
with regard to service of notice upon the
petitioner and on his being satisfied that
despite service of notice the enhanced rent
has not been paid and also that the
petitioner has deliberately avoided entering
into new agreement as per the provisions
contained under Section 4 of the Act of
2021 which in itself was a ground for
eviction and consequently submits that
there was no illegality or infirmity in the
order of eviction passed by the rent
authority.

8. Counsel for the petitioner assailing
the impugned orders has vehemently
submitted that no notice was served upon
the petitioner prior to institution of the
eviction
proceedings
before
the
rent
authority and that the findings recorded by
the courts below is perverse and requires
interference. It was further stated that the
owner has alternative properties in which
he can settle his son and accordingly even
on the ground of comparative hardship no
case is made out in favour of the landlord.

9. Counsel for the respondent has
supported
the
impugned
orders
and
submitted that prior notice was duly served
upon the petitioner and there is no infirmity
in the findings recorded by the courts
below in this regard. He further stated that
the respondent was able to demonstrate that
the premises are required for his personal
need as per section 21 (2) (m) of the Act of
2021 and consequently order for eviction
was passed. He prayed for dismissal of the
writ petition.

10. I have heard learned counsel for
the parties and gone through the records.

11. At the outset, it is noticed that
present proceedings have been initiated
under Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban
Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 which has
replaced Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction)
Act, 1972. There is substantial difference in
the procedure laid down for eviction of the
tenant in both the enactments. Under the
Act of 2021 an obligation is cast upon the
landlord and the tenant to enter into
agreement in writing and inform the rent
authority within two months of the said
agreement either jointly or separately
provided that the tenancy is for a period of
12 months or more. In case of old/existing
tenancy on the date of commencement of
the new Tenancy Act of 2021, the parties
are expected to enter into agreement in
writing and inform the rent authority within
three months of the commencement of the
said Act and in case of written agreement
obligation is cast upon him to inform the
rent authority jointly or separately and
present the same to the Rent authority.

12. That first proviso of Section 4(3)
makes it obligatory to the landlord to give
particulars in prescribed format in First
Schedule qua tenancy to the rent authority
within one month of the expiry of three
months referred to above. In the event no
agreement is entered in writing, and in such
an eventuality the tenant will also be
required to give his particulars and in the
event of failure on part of the tenant in
discharge in his part of obligation, he will
be liable to eviction .

13. Under the old Act of 1972 suits
were maintainable to certain specified
contingencies for seeking eviction, while
under the new tenancy Act any application
for eviction would be maintainable on the
grounds mentioned in the said Act before
the rent authority. Accordingly, simple and
summary procedure has been devised under
the Act of 2021 for eviction of tenant.
1 All. Mahesh Chandra Agarwal Vs. Rent Tribunal, A.D.J. & Ors.
615

14. Considering the rival submissions,
it is noticed that respondent No.3 (The
Landlord) had moved an application under
Section 21(2)(b) of the Tenancy Act, 2021
alleging that the petitioner has not paid
arrears of rent for more than two
consecutive months and also under SubSection 2(m) of Section 21 wherein he has
stated that the said premises was required
by him for establishing business for his
son. Tenancy in the present case had
commenced on 3.4.1989 with regard to
the shop situated at 253/96, Nadan Mahal
Road, Lucknow which was owned by
respondent No.3. The rent agreed in 1989
was Rs.500/- per month. Case of the
landlord was that after coming into force
of the Tenancy Act of 2021 he has been
repeatedly asking and requesting the
petitioner to enter into rent agreement,
but he did not enter into any such
agreement and subsequently he had sent
notice on 23.11.2022 which was refused
to
be
accepted
by
the
petitioner
consequent to which application for
eviction was filed before the rent
authority. It was stated that the petitioner
has alternate accommodation from which
he can start his business and that he
requires the said shop for opening family
business and also for his personal use and
accordingly the rent authority found it to
be a fit case for allowing the application.
Much emphasis has been laid by the
petitioner with regard to service of notice.
It has been stated that repeated attempts
were made for service of notice upon the
petitioner and the service has been found
to be sufficient by the authorities below.

15. Considering the submissions
made by the petitioner with regard to not
receiving any notice of prior to filing of
the suit for eviction, this Court is of the
considered view that when an application
for eviction is based solely on Sub
Section 2(b) of Section 21 of the Act of
2021 which provides that in case the
tenant has not paid arrears of rent and
other charges payable in full as specified
in sub section (1) of Section 13 for two
consecutive months including interest for
the delayed payment as specified by the
tenancy agreement within a period of one
month from the date of service of notice
for payment of such arrears of rent and
other charges payable to the landlord,
service of notice by the Landlord is
essential and mandatory as is provided in
section 21(2)(b) of the Act of 2021.
Relevant extract of section 21 are
reproduced hereunder:-

21(2)-The rent authority may, on an
application made to it by the landlord in
such manner as may be prescribed, make
an order for eviction and recovery of
possession of the premises on one or more
of the following ground, namely-

(a).............

(b) That the tenant has not paid the
areas of rent and other charges payable in
full as specified in subsection (1) of section
13 for 2 consecutive months, including
interest for delayed payment as be specified
in the tenancy agreement within a period of
one month from the date of service of notice
of demand for payment of such arrears of
rent and other charges payable to the
landlord:

(d) and the tenant has continued to
misuse the premises even after receipt of
notice from the landlord to desist from such
misuse.

(g) that the tenant has given written
notice to vacate the premises let out on rent
and in consequence of that notice the
landlord has contracted to sell the said
premises or a stake in any other step, as a
result of which his interest would seriously
616 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
suffer if is not put in possession of the
premises.

(m) that the premises are required by
landlord either in its existing form or after
demolition and new construction thereof
for the purposes of its occupation by
landlord.

16. Provisions of section 21 would
indicate that 12 grounds have been
specified for moving an application for
eviction against the tenant. Only grounds
(b),(d) and (g) provide for service of notice
prior to moving an application for eviction.
According to Subclause (b) where the
application for eviction sought to be made
on ground of non-payment of rent a prior
notice has to be given to the tenant, and in
the event of non-compliance, an application
for eviction can be filed. As per sub clause
(d) in case of the misuse of the premises by
the tenant even after receipt of notice for
the landlord, an application for eviction can
be filed. Here also it is necessary that the
prior notice is required to be given to the
tenant to restrain him from misusing the
property and lastly according to subclause
(g) of section 21 (2) the landlord can give
written notice to the tenant to vacate the
premises informing him that he has
contracted to sell the said premises or that
his interest will suffer in case he is not put
in possession, and in case despite the notice
the premises are not vacated, then an
application for eviction can be filed.

17. It is accordingly noticed that it is
not necessary to give a prior notice for
vacation of the tenanted premises in all the
contingencies as provided for in section
21(2). Wherever notice has to be given
prior to submission of application for
eviction, it been expressly provided for in
section 21(2) and therefore in case the
application for eviction is filed under
clause (b),(d) and (g) of section 21(2) only
then the notice would be necessary given to
the tenant and not otherwise.

18. In the present case application for
eviction was filed under Section 21(2) (m)
and also under section 21(2)(b) of Act of
2021. Respondent No.3 landlord had stated
that the said premises was required for his
personal
use
which
is
a
condition
prescribed in sub clause 2 (m) of Section
21 and consequently there was no dispute
in this regard and even rent authority has
only ordered eviction without passing any
order for payment of arrears of rent, clearly
indicating that the application for eviction
has been allowed only considering the
aspect of personal need of the landlord as
per section 21(2)(m).

19. Both the authorities below have
returned a concurrent finding of fact with
regard to service of notice though the
petitioner has vehemently contested this
fact in the present petition. In light of the
above discussions where we have already
held that there is no requirement of service
of prior notice where eviction was sought
on the ground of personal need as provided
in clause (m) of section 21(2) of the act of
2021, and hence it is not necessary to go
into the issue of sufficiency of notice. The
application for eviction filed by the
landlord has been allowed only on the
ground of personal need as contained in
Section 2(m) of Section 21. It is for this
reason that the rent authority did not pass
any order directing the petitioner to pay the
outstanding rent. According to sub section
2 (m) of Section 21 the landlord has only to
demonstrate that the premises are required
for his occupation. This provision is clearly
distinguishable from the provisions in
erstwhile Act No.13 of 1972 where the
aspect
of
comparative
hardship
and
1 All. No. Jc-58164m Sub Maj Clk(Sd) Manoj Kumar Pandey Vs. The Armed Forces Tribunal
 Lko. & Ors.
617
bonafide requirement was to be established
by the landlord.

20.

Exclusions
of
bonafide
requirement of landlord as a ground for
eviction has, in fact, materially altered the
law in this regard.

21. In absence of the word "bonafide
requirement" under the Tenancy Act, 2021
the landlord has to demonstrate that the
premises are required by him in its existing
form or after demolition for the purpose of
its occupation by him. This aspect of the
matter has not been disputed by the
petitioner nor is there averment or material
either before the rent authority or rent
tribunal or before this Court to show that
the landlord does not require the tenanted
premises for his own occupation. In
absence of any such averment or material
there would not be any occasion to interfere
in the order passed by the rent authority or
the rent tribunal.

22. Accordingly, there is no merit in
the
present
writ
petition
which
is
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 617
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Writ-A No. 8700 of 2023

No. Jc-58164m Sub Maj Clk(Sd) Manoj
Kumar Pandey ...Petitioner
Versus
The Armed Forces Tribunal Lko. & Ors.
 ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mohd. Murtaza Hasan, Anshuman Srivastava,
Manoj Kumar Awasthi

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I.

Service Law - Army Rules, 1954 - Rule 13
(3) item 1 (i) (a) - Petitioner enrolled in Army
on 04.05.1990, placed in low medical category
P2 (permanent), promoted to rank of Subedar
Major w.e.f. 01.04.2020 - Petitioner did not
submit two-year unwillingness certificate before
retirement as required under letter/policy dated
20.09.2010, and thus deemed willing for
extension under para 2(a) of Appendix 'A' of
said letter - After his promotion to Subedar
Major, screening for extension could not be held
due to nationwide lockdown in April-May 2020 -
Following phased lifting of lockdown from
01.06.2020, procedure for such screening
amended
by
policy
dated
05.05.2020
-
Petitioner promoted prior to amended policy
which came into force on 01.06.2020 - His
willingness for two years' extension later
submitted on 29.07.2020, after coming into
force of amended policy - Considering deeming
clause enunciated in Old Policy coupled with fact
that petitioner promoted on 01.04.2020 i.e.
before coming into force of amended policy,
thus petitioner's case for extension of service for
two years comes under Old Policy, action of
respondents
in
considering
willingness
of
petitioner under amended policy is contrary to
'deeming clause' of Old Policy. (Para 15, 19, 21,
22)

Writ petition allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Kamraj Nadar Vs Kanju Thevar : (1959)
S.C.R. 583(602), A.I.R. 1958 SC 687, (Para 28)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,
J.)

(A) Introduction

(1) The challenge in the present writ
petition
under
Article
226
of
the