SMT. BIMLA DEVI ETC. versus 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS ETC.

SMT. BIMLA DEVI ETC. versus 1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS ETC.

A landlord is deemed to be in occupation under Explanation (iv) to section 21(1)(b) of the 1972 Act if retaining control of a part of the building, even without actual residence, and the right to seek release of the rest of the premises is a substantive vested right; the 1976 amendment deleting Explanation (iv) has no retrospective effect.

Parties
Appellant: Smt. Bimla Devi; Respondent: Vishwa Nath Kapoor; Appellant: Appellant in C.A. No. 379/80 (name not provided); Respondent: Respondent in C.A. No. 379/80 (name not provided)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 March 1984
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Hearing on Appeal From Orders of the Allahabad High Court
Outcome
Appeals allowed
Legal Topics
Eviction, Urban Buildings Regulation, Retrospective Application of Amendments, Landlord and Tenant Rights
Land Law Rent Control Eviction Urban Buildings Regulation Retrospective Application of Amendments Landlord and Tenant Rights

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Smt. Bimla Devi

Appellant

Vishwa Nath Kapoor

Respondent

Appellant in C.A. No. 379/80 (name not provided)

Appellant

Respondent in C.A. No. 379/80 (name not provided)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Hearing on Appeal From Orders of the Allahabad High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether actual residence/physical occupation by the landlord is necessary for relief under Explanation (iv) to section 21(1)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972
  2. 2 Whether the deletion of Explanation (iv) by the 1976 Amendment Act has retrospective effect and affects vested rights

Ratio Decidendi

A landlord is deemed to be in occupation under Explanation (iv) to section 21(1)(b) of the 1972 Act if retaining control of a part of the building, even without actual residence, and the right to seek release of the rest of the premises is a substantive vested right; the 1976 amendment deleting Explanation (iv) has no retrospective effect.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed

Orders

  • Release of the entire premises in respondent's possession to the appellant in both appeals.
  • Respondents granted time to vacate the premises (in C.A. No. 379/80 till 31st December 1984, in C.A. No. 41/79 till 31st October 1984), subject to the usual undertakings to be filed within four weeks from the order, failing which immediate possession may be obtained.