SAMAR PAL SINGH versus CHITRANJAN SINGH

SAMAR PAL SINGH versus CHITRANJAN SINGH

The tenant is not entitled to protection under Section 20(4) because he or his family members have acquired properties in vacant state which are not exclusively commercial, and buildings usable for residential-cum-commercial purposes fall within the scope of the proviso. High Court erred in reversing eviction decree; decree of eviction and recovery of arrears restored.

Parties
Appellant: Samar Pal Singh; Respondent: Chitranjan Singh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From High Court Order in Civil Revision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; eviction decree restored.
Legal Topics
Eviction, Non Payment of Rent, Deposit of Arrears, Protection Under Section 20(4) of U.p. Act No. 13 of 1972
Landlord & Tenant Property Law Eviction Non Payment of Rent Deposit of Arrears Protection Under Section 20(4) of U.p. Act No. 13 of 1972

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samar Pal Singh

Appellant

Chitranjan Singh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From High Court Order in Civil Revision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tenant is protected from eviction under Section 20(4) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, in light of the acquisition of buildings by the tenant or his family members within the same city.
  2. 2 Whether properties acquired by tenant are commercial or residential for the purposes of the proviso to Section 20(4).

Ratio Decidendi

The tenant is not entitled to protection under Section 20(4) because he or his family members have acquired properties in vacant state which are not exclusively commercial, and buildings usable for residential-cum-commercial purposes fall within the scope of the proviso. High Court erred in reversing eviction decree; decree of eviction and recovery of arrears restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; eviction decree restored.

Orders

  • Decree passed by Judge Small Causes Court/Xth Additional District Judge, Meerut in SCC Suit No. 5 of 1983 is restored.
  • Defendants are directed to vacate premises within a period of sixty days from date of Supreme Court judgment.