Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 696 (ALL)

Amarjeet Singh v. Shiv Kumari Yadav

2024-03-05

ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA

body2024
JUDGMENT : 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 29.3.2023 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 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 alongwith 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 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-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 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 of Tenancy Agreement alongwith 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. Sub-section (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 co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Amit Gupta v. Gulab Chandra Kanodia, 2023 (10) ADJ 23 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 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. 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. (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.