Disposed

Smt. Beena Rastogi and 2 Others v. Shri. Aseem Rastogi

Allahabad HC28 Aug 2024A227/4044/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged orders in a rent eviction proceeding. The court accepted deletion of the Rent Tribunal/Authority as opposite parties, citing Supreme Court precedent, issued notice with counter affidavits, granted interim protection from eviction subject to rent deposit, and allowed the landlord to seek rent enhancement.

What did the court decide?

Interim protection from eviction subject to continued rent deposit; permission to delete Rent Tribunal/Authority from array; counter affidavit directed.

Smt. Beena Rastogi and 2 Others vs Shri. Aseem Rastogi — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 19

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4044 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Beena Rastogi And 2 Others Respondent :- The Rent Tribunal/Court Of Addl. Distt. Judge/Special Judge Special Court No 04 Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anupama Bhadauria Counsel for Respondent :- Amal Rastogi

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Ms. Anupama Bhadauria, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Amal Rastogi, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3.

¶6

By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged validity of order dated 31.05.2023 passed by the Rent Authority/ Additional District Magistrate (East), Lucknow in Computerized Case No. D202110460005195 and the order dated 20.07.2024 passed by the Rent Tribunal/ Additional District Judge/ Special Judge, Special Court No. 4 (PC Act), Lucknow in Rent Appeal No. 140 of 2023.

¶7

At the outset, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3-landlord raised a preliminary objection that the petitioners have impleaded the Rent Tribunal and Rent Authorities as opposite parties in the suit whereas as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur : (1999) 2 SCC 577 and Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinhji v. State of Gujarat : (2015) 9 SCC 1, the Rent Authorities and Rent Tribunals ought not to have impleaded as the opposite parties in the petition.

¶8

Confronted with the aforesaid objection, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that he has imleaded the aforesaid authorities erroneously and she has made an oral request for being permitted to delete the Rent Authority and the Rent Tribunal from the array of the opposite patties.

¶9

The request of the learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted and she is directed to delete the Rent Tribunal and Rent Authority from the array of the opposite parties and to correct the serial number of opposite party no. 3 forthwith.

¶10

The office is also directed to correct the description of parties to the petition in the web portal of this Court.

¶11

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the opposite party-landlord had filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 for eviction of the petitioners from the shop in their tenancy, on 04.12.2020. During pendency of that application, U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 was enacted w.e.f. 11.01.2021, on which date, the application filed by the opposite party under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was pending. Section 46 of the Act, 2021 provides as follows:-

¶12

“(1) The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972) and the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy (Second) Ordinance, 2021 (U.P. Ordinance no. 3 of 2021) is hereby repealed.

¶13

(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, all cases and other proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972) pending, at the commencement of this Act, shall be continued and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the said Act of 1972 as if that Act had continued to be in force and this Act had not been promulgated.

¶14

(3) All cases and proceedings relating to any dispute between a landlord and a tenant under any law other than the law repealed by sub-section (1) pending before the Civil Court or in appeal before any other Court on the date of commencement of this Act, in respect of the premises to which this Act applies, shall be continued before such Court and disposed of in accordance with such applicable law.

¶15

(4) Notwithstanding such repeal anything done or any action taken under the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Ordinance, 2021 (U.P. Ordinance no. 2 of 2021) and

¶16

the Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy (Second) Ordinance, 2021 (U.P. Ordinance no. 3 of 2021) shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act.”

¶17

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the case filed earlier under Section 21 (1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1973 ought to be continued and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of said Act of 1973 as per the provisions contained in Section 46(2) of the Act of 2021.

¶18

The matter requires consideration.

¶19

Another submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there was no written agreement between the parties and, therefore, no proceedings could be initiated under Act of 1973.

¶20

The opposite parties may file counter affidavit within two weeks.

¶21

The petitioner may file rejoinder affidavit within a period of one week thereafter.

¶22

List this case in the week commencing 23.09.2024.

¶23

Meanwhile, as an interim measure, it is provided that till he next date of listing, the petitioners shall not be evicted from the premises in question provided they continue to deposit rent of the premises to the opposite party-landlord.

¶24

The learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the tenant is paying a meager amount as rent since inception of the tenancy. Under the Act of 2021 there is a provision for enhancement of rent and the opposite party shall be free to file a suitable application in this regard which may be decided in accordance with law and the filing of application would not prejudice the opposite parties' right in this petition.

¶25

Order Date :- 29.8.2024

¶26

Pradeep/-

¶27

Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Beena Rastogi and 2 Others v. Shri. Aseem Rastogi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Beena Rastogi and 2 Others v. Shri. Aseem Rastogi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ashutosh Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Sachin Nayar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Gurumeet Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

M/S Krishna Steels Thru. Proprietor Pramod Kumar vs Commissioner Commerical Tax Lko

M/S Krishna Steels Lko Thru Proprietor Pramod Kumar vs Commissioner Commercial Tax, Lko.U.P.

Masuk vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko