SRI SIDHHARTH VIYAS &ANR. versus RAVI NATH MISRA & ORS.

SRI SIDHHARTH VIYAS &ANR. versus RAVI NATH MISRA & ORS.

Section 12(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 applies to a tenant who acquires alternative accommodation after the commencement of tenancy but prior to the application of the Act to the tenancy in question. Acquisition of such accommodation is covered by the provision, and the use of present tense does not limit the temporal operation of the provision. The High Court's contrary view is incorrect and overruled.

Parties
Appellant: Sri Siddharth Viyas; Respondent: Ravi Nath Misra
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
25 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Deemed Vacancy, Acquisition of Alternative Accommodation, Interpretation of Statutes, Proviso Construction
Rent Control Statutory Interpretation Deemed Vacancy Acquisition of Alternative Accommodation Interpretation of Statutes Proviso Construction

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sri Siddharth Viyas

Appellant

Ravi Nath Misra

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Section 12(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 applies where the tenant or a member of his family acquires alternative accommodation after commencement of the tenancy but prior to application of the Act to the tenancy in question.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 12(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 applies to a tenant who acquires alternative accommodation after the commencement of tenancy but prior to the application of the Act to the tenancy in question. Acquisition of such accommodation is covered by the provision, and the use of present tense does not limit the temporal operation of the provision. The High Court's contrary view is incorrect and overruled.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned order of the High Court set aside
  • Order of the Rent Controller restored