Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose over premises in Rae Bareli rented to an Aushadhalaya in 1946 or 1947. After the Aushadhalaya ceased operations in 1976, an employee, Hirday Ranjan Chakraborty, continued to occupy the premises without the landlord's consent. The appellant, brother-in-law of the landlords, applied under Section 12 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, claiming the premises had fallen vacant. The Rent Controller agreed, declaring the premises vacant, but the High Court reversed this decision, considering the employee as a tenant. The Supreme Court found the High Court's reasoning flawed, affirming the Rent Controller's decision that the premises were deemed vacant as they were occupied by someone other than the tenant without consent. The court emphasized that the tenant had long left, and the employee's occupation did not establish a new tenancy. The appeal was allowed, restoring the Rent Controller's order and setting aside the High Court's judgment.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Deemed Vacancy - Definition and Conditions - U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, Section 12 - The court held that the premises were deemed vacant as they were occupied by a person other than the tenant without the landlord's consent, despite the tenant's employee continuing to occupy the premises. The High Court's conclusion that the employee was a tenant was erroneous as the tenant had ceased to occupy the premises since 1976 (Paras 431-432).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the premises can be deemed vacant when occupied by an employee of the tenant company without the landlord's consent.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restoring the Rent Controller's order declaring the premises vacant and setting aside the High Court's judgment.
Law Points
- Deemed vacancy
- tenant's family
- consent of landlord
- occupation rights
- U.P. Urban Buildings Act
