2020 (4) TMI 891 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking release of shop by Landlord - service of notice - after purchase of the said shop, the Appellant requested the Respondent to vacate the shop, to which the Respondent initially agreed but later refused to vacate - case of the Respondent (tenant) is that there was no notice issued by the Appellant (landlord) to the Respondent (tenant), mandatorily required under Section 21(1)(a) of the Rent Control Act - HELD THAT - The primary reason for allowing the Writ Petition was that there could be no presumption of service of notice as required under the Proviso to Section 21(1)(a) of the Rent Control Act. The finding of the fact with regard to comparative hardship of the landlord being higher than that of the tenant, as recorded by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority, has not been disturbed by the High Court, except for a mere mention in passing in the later part of the judgment, which cannot be considered to have upset the finding of fact with regard to comparative hardship, as recorded by the Authorities. From Section 21(1)(a) of the Rent Control Act, it is clear that no particular mode of giving notice by the landlord to the tenant has been provided for, meaning thereby that the same could be given orally or in writing; and if in writing, it is not necessary that it should be sent only by registered post. What is required is that the landlord has given a notice in that behalf to the tenant . Thus, it is clear that evidence adduced on affidavit was admissible before the Prescribed Authority. In the facts of the present case, when the Appellant (landlord) had filed the photocopy of the receipt of having sent the notice under certificate of posting, along with an affidavit, which was accepted by the Prescribed Authority, and coupled with the attending circumstances as noticed by the Prescribed Authority, a specific finding of fact was recorded that due notice, as required Under Section 21 of the Rent Control Act, had been sent by the Appellant (landlord) and received by the Respondent (tenant), which is fully justified in law. The judgment of the Writ Court is set aside and the release application of the Appellant (landlord), which was allowed by the Prescribed Authority, and affirmed by the Appellate Authority, stands affirmed - application allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the mandatory six months' notice under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was duly served.
2. Comparative hardship between the landlord and the tenant.
3. Validity of the High Court's presumption regarding the landlord's intention.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Service of Mandatory Notice:
The primary issue was whether the landlord had duly served the mandatory six months' notice to the tenant as required under Section 21(1)(a) of the Rent Control Act. The High Court had allowed the writ petition primarily on the ground that there could be no presumption of service of notice sent "under certificate of posting." However, the Supreme Court observed that the Rent Control Act does not prescribe any specific mode for serving the notice. The Prescribed Authority had found that the notice was served based on various facts, including the tenant's admission of the landlord-tenant relationship and the tenant's subsequent act of depositing rent in court under Section 30(1) of the Rent Control Act. The Supreme Court held that the combination of these facts and the affidavit filed by the landlord constituted sufficient proof of service. The Court emphasized that evidence on affidavit is admissible under Section 34 of the Rent Control Act, and the finding of fact by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority should not have been disturbed by the High Court.

2. Comparative Hardship:
The Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority had both found that the hardship faced by the landlord was greater than that of the tenant. The landlord needed the shop for his personal business, while the tenant had other commercial accommodations. The High Court did not specifically address or overturn this finding. The Supreme Court affirmed this finding, noting that it was based on valid reasons and did not require interference.

3. High Court's Presumption Regarding Landlord's Intention:
The High Court had presumed that the landlord's intention was to purchase the old shop, renovate or demolish it, and then sell it for profit, rather than using it for his own business. The Supreme Court found this presumption to be unfounded, as the landlord had provided sufficient evidence of his bona fide need for the shop for his personal business. The landlord had undertaken not to let out the shop in the future and to use it for his own business, which was found to be genuine and pressing by the lower authorities.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the High Court. The release application of the landlord, which was allowed by the Prescribed Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority, was reinstated. The tenant was directed to vacate the premises and hand over possession to the landlord within six months. No order as to costs was made.