UP Urban Buildings Act | Amendment/Substitution In Pending Release Application Not A Second Application: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that filing an amendment application or substitution application in a pending application for release of property from tenant under Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation Of Letting, Rent And Eviction) Act, 1972 cannot be treated as a second application.

The Court held that in absence of any decision on the merits of first release application, any amendment to it cannot be treated as a second release application under Section 21 of the Act.

“The amendment made in the pending release application on the death of the original release applicant cannot be contrued to give rise to a second release application so as to attract Rule 18 (2) of the Rules particularly in view of Section 21 (7) of the act which permits the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased landlord to prosecute the release application further on the basis of their own need in substitution of the need of the deceased,” held Justice Ashutosh Srivastava.

Factual Background

One Virendra Singh, predecessor in interest of the respondents, filed an application for release of the property which was rented by the petitioner on grounds that he was a retired government employee and desired setting up his own business. The property had devolved upon Virendra Singh and his two brothers who partitioned it. The shop rented by the petitioner fell within the portion of Virendra Singh.

The petitioner-tenant opposed the release application on grounds that the shop rented by the petitioner belonged to other co-owners and not the respondent.

During the pendency of the rent case before the Prescribed Authority, the landlord Virendra Singh passed away and his heirs and legal representatives (now respondents) were brought on record. Tenant argued that though the parties were substituted, the need of the shop for the legal heirs was not amended. Respondents filed an affidavit stating that they wanted the shop for a cosmetic business.

While rejecting the application for release, the Prescribed Authority held that though the legal heirs had filed an affidavit and had substituted themselves, they had failed to plead their needs to warrant the release of the property from the tenant. It was held that there was no bonafide need of the respondents to warrant release of the property.

In appeal, the landlord-respondents sought to amend the original release application which was allowed ex-parte because the petitioner tenant did not appear. However, time was granted to petitioner to file additional objections.

The Appellate Authority held that the tenant petitioner had not states anything to rebut the need for the shop stated by the respondents. It was held that the tenant cannot dictate to the landlord the way the property is to be used. It was also held that the petitioner has other shops from which he is running his business, however, the respondents do not have any other property.

Challenging the order of the Appellate Authority, counsel for petitioner argued that the Authority had failed to establish that a relationship of tenant and landlord existed between the parties. It was argued that retrospective amendment in the release application was wrongly allowed. Further, it was argued that the other two shops owned by the petitioner had different registrations and distinct proprietorships.

Per contra, counsel for respondent-landlords argued that while amending the release application, the word 'wadi' was replaced by 'wadigan' which meant that the need for shop which was stated by the deceased was the same for his heirs. Specifics of business were not needed to be disclosed, it was submitted.

High Court Verdict

The Court held that the Prescribed Authority had returned a specific finding regarding the existence of tenant-landlord relationship which was not contested by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority. The Court held that the issues could not be raised at this stage. It was held that the specific averment regarding ownership of the rented property by the respondents had not been denied by the tenant.

The Court observed that Rule 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation Of Letting, Rent And Eviction) Rules provides that a decision on the same grounds by the Prescribed Authority is binding while deciding a second release application filed on same grounds.

Holding that an amendment application and substitution application is not a second release application, the Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court directed the petitioner to vacate the premises within 4 months.

Case Title: Shiv Sewak Kashyap v. Veerendra Singh And 3 Others [WRIT - A No. - 20193 of 2023]

Counsel for Petitioner: Prakhar Tandon

Counsel for Respondent: Shreya Gupta, Deepak Singh

Click Here To Read/Download Order