High Court · 2025

Petitioner :- Anand Prakash Singh Respondent :- Anjali Gupta And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Manu Khare Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

1. Heard Mr. Manu Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant and Mr. Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2/land-lord.

2. Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to ground floor of premises No.3- 30/5, Mohalla-Lanka, District Varanasi and petitioner is tenant of the aforementioned premises. Plaintiff/landlord/respondent filed a SCC Suit No.132 of 1998 against petitioner's father. During pendency of SCC Suit No.132 of 1998 another SCC Suit No.2338 of 2022 was filed by plaintiff/landlord/respondents, which was dismissed vide order dated 30.05.2023 in view of pendency of earlier SCC Suit No.132 of 1998. The earlier SCC Suit No.132 of 1998 was ultimately dismissed as abated vide order dated 05.12.2023. Petitioner challenged the order dated 05.12.2023 by way of revision before the District Judge, which is still pending. A fresh notice dated 20.12.2023 was issued to petitioner for arrears of rent and possession. Rent Authority decided the Case No.1363 of 2024 ex-parte under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 herein after referred to as Act of 2021 vide order dated 08.10.2024 directing the petitioner to vacate the shop in dispute within a month and for payment of arrears of rent to landlord. Petitioner filed an application under Section 34(1)(g) read with Section 34(8) of the Act of 2021 for recall of the order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the Rent Authority. The aforementioned recall application as well as delay condonation application were dismissed by the Rent Authority vide order dated 06.06.2025. Petitioner filed appeal before the Rent Tribunal/Additional District and Sessions Judge under Section 35 of the Act of 2021 challenging the orders dated 08.10.2024 and 06.06.2025. The aforementioned appeal filed by petitioner has been dismissed by the Rent Tribunal/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi vide order dated 22.07.2025. Hence, this petition on behalf of the petitioner for following relief: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may very kindly be pleased to quash the impugned orders dated 08.10.2024 and 06.06.2025 passed by the rent authority in Case Nos. 1363 of 2024 and 5356 of 2025 as well as order dated 22.07.2025 passed in Rent Appeal No. 133 of 2025 (Annexure Nos. 1, 2 & 3), and/or pass such other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case."

3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that entire proceeding had been conducted in ex-parte manner against the petitioner. He submitted that application for recall/restoration dated 13.05.2025 along with the prayer for condonation of delay filed in the proceeding under Section 21 (2) of the Act of 2021 has been rejected on misconceived ground. He submitted that publication has taken place in the newspaper, which has no circulation in the area, as such, the entire proceeding is illegal. He submitted that Additional District Magistrate/Rent Authority has illegally rejected the petitioner's recall/restoration application. He submitted that the appeal under Section 35 has also been dismissed in arbitrary manner. He submitted that all the three orders should be set aside and proceeding under Section 21 (2) of the Act of 2021 should be decided a fresh.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the landlord/respondent submitted that proper steps were taken for service of notice upon the petitioner/tenant. He further submitted that in view of the provisions contained in Rule 7 of the 2021 Rules, the notice shall be deemed to be served upon petitioner/tenant. He submitted that appeal under Section 35 of the Act of 2021 has been dismissed in proper manner as there was no compliance of Section 35 (1) of the Act of 2021. He submitted that petitioner/tenant is occupying the shop on the meager amount of monthly rent, as such is avoiding the service of notice in the proceeding.

5. I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. There is no dispute about the facts that proceeding under Section 21(2) of the Act of 2021 has been decided against the petitioner/tenant and the time barred restoration application filed on behalf of the tenant has been rejected. It is also not disputed that the appeal under Section 35 of the Act of 2021 has also been dismissed under the impugned appellate order dated 22.07.2025.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter the perusal of the order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the Rent Authority will be relevant which is as under: " ववपकक कक ससधसरण व पपजककक त नकवटस भभजस गयस ततपशसत गजट कक कसयरवसहक कक गयक। ववपकक कक आपतत / ससनवसई हभतस समसवचत अवसर पदसन वकयस गयस परनतस ववपकक सवयप यस उसकभ पवतवनतध नयसयसलय उपसससत नहह आयभ। उपरकक कभ पररपभकय मम वसवदनक कभ ववदसन अतधवकस कक बहस कक ससनस गयस एवप पतसवलक पर उपलबध ससकयय कस समयकक पररशकलन एवप अवलककन वकयस गयस। अवललकन सभ सपष हह वक वसवदनक मसकदमस / अपजलक गसपस व अनय दसरस पसतसत वकयभ गयभ तकर ससकय उसकभ दसवभ कक सशक आधर पदसन करतभ हह जबवक ववपकक / पवतवसदक कक पयसरप अवसर वदयभ जसनभ कभ पशसत भक उसकभ दसरस इस नयसयसलय कभ समक अपनस पक नहह रखस गयस हह जक वक यह दशसरतस हह वक पवतवसदक दसरस अपनभ पक मम यस तक कस छ भक कहनस नहह हह एवप उसकभ पसस वसदक कभ दसवभ कभ खणडन हभतस ककई ससकय नहह हह असवस पवतवसदक दसरस वसवदनक कभ दसवभ कक मलन सवककक वत पदसन कक जस रहक हह कययवक " ववतध सदहव जसगरक कक मदद करतक हह न वक उनकक जक वक अपनभ अतधकसरय कभ पवत सकतभ रहतभ हह" (vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt) धयसतवय हह मस० उचचतम नयसयसलय दसरस भक भसरतकय सटभट बबक बनसम एमजभ मम यह वनधसरररत वकयस गयस हह वक " मलन जभमस, 2021 एससकसक, आनलसइन एस सक 1061, 16.11.21 सवककक वत वसतसतत वयवक कभ अतधकसर कक नष कर दभतक हह।" अतत उपरकक तथयय कभ आलकक मम यह सससपष हह वक पवतवसदक दसरस वसवदनक कभ दसवभ कभ समबनध मम उसकभ उपर आरकप ससवबत करनभ कभ भसर कस पसलन नहह वकयस गयस यदवप वक उसकक पयसरप अवसर पदसन वकयस गयस, ससस हक यह दवषगकचर हकतस हह वक वसवदनक कभ दसवय कभ पवत पवतवसदक दसरस मलन सवककक वत पदसन कक गयक हह। अतत वसवदनक दसरस पसतसत आवभदन/ वसद सवककसर वकयभ जसनभ यकगय हह। आदभश पर वदयभ गयभ पससरनस पत वदनसपक 24.04.2024 पतसवलक पर उपलबध ससकयय कभ परकशकलन तसस उपरकक वववभचनस कभ आधसर पर वसवदनक शकमतक अपजलक गसपस व अनय कभ पपत 7 कक सवककसर वकयस जसतस हह तसस पवतवसदक/ वकरसयभदसर आननद पकसश तसपह कक वनदरवशत वकयस जसतस हह वक इस आदभश कभ वदनसपक सभ 01 मसह कभ भकतर पशगत दसकसन कक पपवरवत कक भसपवत ररक कर दभ तसस समसत बकसयस वकरसयस वसवदनक कक पसप करसयभ। पवतवसदक दसरस पररसर ररक न करनभ व शभष बकसयस वकरसयस पसप न करसनभ पर वसवदनक कक कसनपनक तलर पर कबजस व समसत बकसयस वकरसयस पसप करनभ कस ववतधक अतधकसर हकगस। बसद आवशयक कसयरवसहक पतसवलक दसतखल दफतर हक।"

8. Perusal of the order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the Rent Authority as quoted above demonstrate that the petitioner/tenant has not been afforded opportunity to contest the proceeding before the Rent Authority.

9. Recall/Restoration application along with prayer for condonation of delay has been rejected by the Rent Authority taking strict view in the matter.

10. The appeal filed by petitioner has also been dismissed on the ground that there is no compliance of Section 35 (1) of the Act of 2021.

11. The interest of justice requires that petitioner/tenant should be afforded proper opportunity to contest the proceeding before the Rent Authority as publication of notice in the instant matter has taken place in the newspaper, which has no circulation in the area, as such, the service of notice cannot be deemed to be sufficient upon tenant/petitioner.

12. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the orders impugned dated 08.10.2024 and 06.06.2025 passed by the Rent Authority in Case No.1363 of 2024 as well as the appellate order dated 22.07.2025 passed in Rent Appeal No.133 of 2025 are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside.

13. Considering the fact that shop in dispute is situated in District Varanasi and the petitioner is paying monthly rent of Rs.110/- of the shop in question, as such, the same should be enhanced to Rs.4,000/- per month. The petitioner shall pay/deposit the amount of Rs.4,000/- per month to the landlord under this order towards the rent of the shop in question from September, 2025. The aforementioned amount shall be paid/deposited by the petitioner by 7th of every month to the landlord.

14. The instant petition is, accordingly, allowed and matter is remitted back before the Rent Authority to register the Case No.1363 of 2024 on its original number and decide the same a fresh on merit in following manner/ direction to the Rent Authority/Parties:- (i) Both the parties are directed to appear before the Rent Authority, Varanasi on 25.08.2025. (ii) The Rent Authority shall decide the proceeding of Case No.1363 of 2024 expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Anurag/- ANURAG JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Petitioner :- Anand Prakash Singh Respondent :- Anjali Gupta And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Manu Khare Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

1. Heard Mr. Manu Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner/tenant and Mr. Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2/land-lord.

2. Brief facts of the case are that dispute relates to ground floor of premises No.3- 30/5, Mohalla-Lanka, District Varanasi and petitioner is tenant of the aforementioned premises. Plaintiff/landlord/respondent filed a SCC Suit No.132 of 1998 against petitioner's father. During pendency of SCC Suit No.132 of 1998 another SCC Suit No.2338 of 2022 was filed by plaintiff/landlord/respondents, which was dismissed vide order dated 30.05.2023 in view of pendency of earlier SCC Suit No.132 of 1998. The earlier SCC Suit No.132 of 1998 was ultimately dismissed as abated vide order dated 05.12.2023. Petitioner challenged the order dated 05.12.2023 by way of revision before the District Judge, which is still pending. A fresh notice dated 20.12.2023 was issued to petitioner for arrears of rent and possession. Rent Authority decided the Case No.1363 of 2024 ex-parte under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 herein after referred to as Act of 2021 vide order dated 08.10.2024 directing the petitioner to vacate the shop in dispute within a month and for payment of arrears of rent to landlord. Petitioner filed an application under Section 34(1)(g) read with Section 34(8) of the Act of 2021 for recall of the order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the Rent Authority. The aforementioned recall application as well as delay condonation application were dismissed by the Rent Authority vide order dated 06.06.2025. Petitioner filed appeal before the Rent Tribunal/Additional District and Sessions Judge under Section 35 of the Act of 2021 challenging the orders dated 08.10.2024 and 06.06.2025. The aforementioned appeal filed by petitioner has been dismissed by the Rent Tribunal/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi vide order dated 22.07.2025. Hence, this petition on behalf of the petitioner for following relief: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may very kindly be pleased to quash the impugned orders dated 08.10.2024 and 06.06.2025 passed by the rent authority in Case Nos. 1363 of 2024 and 5356 of 2025 as well as order dated 22.07.2025 passed in Rent Appeal No. 133 of 2025 (Annexure Nos. 1, 2 & 3), and/or pass such other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case."

3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that entire proceeding had been conducted in ex-parte manner against the petitioner. He submitted that application for recall/restoration dated 13.05.2025 along with the prayer for condonation of delay filed in the proceeding under Section 21 (2) of the Act of 2021 has been rejected on misconceived ground. He submitted that publication has taken place in the newspaper, which has no circulation in the area, as such, the entire proceeding is illegal. He submitted that Additional District Magistrate/Rent Authority has illegally rejected the petitioner's recall/restoration application. He submitted that the appeal under Section 35 has also been dismissed in arbitrary manner. He submitted that all the three orders should be set aside and proceeding under Section 21 (2) of the Act of 2021 should be decided a fresh.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the landlord/respondent submitted that proper steps were taken for service of notice upon the petitioner/tenant. He further submitted that in view of the provisions contained in Rule 7 of the 2021 Rules, the notice shall be deemed to be served upon petitioner/tenant. He submitted that appeal under Section 35 of the Act of 2021 has been dismissed in proper manner as there was no compliance of Section 35 (1) of the Act of 2021. He submitted that petitioner/tenant is occupying the shop on the meager amount of monthly rent, as such is avoiding the service of notice in the proceeding.

5. I have considered the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. There is no dispute about the facts that proceeding under Section 21(2) of the Act of 2021 has been decided against the petitioner/tenant and the time barred restoration application filed on behalf of the tenant has been rejected. It is also not disputed that the appeal under Section 35 of the Act of 2021 has also been dismissed under the impugned appellate order dated 22.07.2025.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter the perusal of the order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the Rent Authority will be relevant which is as under: " ववपकक कक ससधसरण व पपजककक त नकवटस भभजस गयस ततपशसत गजट कक कसयरवसहक कक गयक। ववपकक कक आपतत / ससनवसई हभतस समसवचत अवसर पदसन वकयस गयस परनतस ववपकक सवयप यस उसकभ पवतवनतध नयसयसलय उपसससत नहह आयभ। उपरकक कभ पररपभकय मम वसवदनक कभ ववदसन अतधवकस कक बहस कक ससनस गयस एवप पतसवलक पर उपलबध ससकयय कस समयकक पररशकलन एवप अवलककन वकयस गयस। अवललकन सभ सपष हह वक वसवदनक मसकदमस / अपजलक गसपस व अनय दसरस पसतसत वकयभ गयभ तकर ससकय उसकभ दसवभ कक सशक आधर पदसन करतभ हह जबवक ववपकक / पवतवसदक कक पयसरप अवसर वदयभ जसनभ कभ पशसत भक उसकभ दसरस इस नयसयसलय कभ समक अपनस पक नहह रखस गयस हह जक वक यह दशसरतस हह वक पवतवसदक दसरस अपनभ पक मम यस तक कस छ भक कहनस नहह हह एवप उसकभ पसस वसदक कभ दसवभ कभ खणडन हभतस ककई ससकय नहह हह असवस पवतवसदक दसरस वसवदनक कभ दसवभ कक मलन सवककक वत पदसन कक जस रहक हह कययवक " ववतध सदहव जसगरक कक मदद करतक हह न वक उनकक जक वक अपनभ अतधकसरय कभ पवत सकतभ रहतभ हह" (vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt) धयसतवय हह मस० उचचतम नयसयसलय दसरस भक भसरतकय सटभट बबक बनसम एमजभ मम यह वनधसरररत वकयस गयस हह वक " मलन जभमस, 2021 एससकसक, आनलसइन एस सक 1061, 16.11.21 सवककक वत वसतसतत वयवक कभ अतधकसर कक नष कर दभतक हह।" अतत उपरकक तथयय कभ आलकक मम यह सससपष हह वक पवतवसदक दसरस वसवदनक कभ दसवभ कभ समबनध मम उसकभ उपर आरकप ससवबत करनभ कभ भसर कस पसलन नहह वकयस गयस यदवप वक उसकक पयसरप अवसर पदसन वकयस गयस, ससस हक यह दवषगकचर हकतस हह वक वसवदनक कभ दसवय कभ पवत पवतवसदक दसरस मलन सवककक वत पदसन कक गयक हह। अतत वसवदनक दसरस पसतसत आवभदन/ वसद सवककसर वकयभ जसनभ यकगय हह। आदभश पर वदयभ गयभ पससरनस पत वदनसपक 24.04.2024 पतसवलक पर उपलबध ससकयय कभ परकशकलन तसस उपरकक वववभचनस कभ आधसर पर वसवदनक शकमतक अपजलक गसपस व अनय कभ पपत 7 कक सवककसर वकयस जसतस हह तसस पवतवसदक/ वकरसयभदसर आननद पकसश तसपह कक वनदरवशत वकयस जसतस हह वक इस आदभश कभ वदनसपक सभ 01 मसह कभ भकतर पशगत दसकसन कक पपवरवत कक भसपवत ररक कर दभ तसस समसत बकसयस वकरसयस वसवदनक कक पसप करसयभ। पवतवसदक दसरस पररसर ररक न करनभ व शभष बकसयस वकरसयस पसप न करसनभ पर वसवदनक कक कसनपनक तलर पर कबजस व समसत बकसयस वकरसयस पसप करनभ कस ववतधक अतधकसर हकगस। बसद आवशयक कसयरवसहक पतसवलक दसतखल दफतर हक।"

8. Perusal of the order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the Rent Authority as quoted above demonstrate that the petitioner/tenant has not been afforded opportunity to contest the proceeding before the Rent Authority.

9. Recall/Restoration application along with prayer for condonation of delay has been rejected by the Rent Authority taking strict view in the matter.

10. The appeal filed by petitioner has also been dismissed on the ground that there is no compliance of Section 35 (1) of the Act of 2021.

11. The interest of justice requires that petitioner/tenant should be afforded proper opportunity to contest the proceeding before the Rent Authority as publication of notice in the instant matter has taken place in the newspaper, which has no circulation in the area, as such, the service of notice cannot be deemed to be sufficient upon tenant/petitioner.

12. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the orders impugned dated 08.10.2024 and 06.06.2025 passed by the Rent Authority in Case No.1363 of 2024 as well as the appellate order dated 22.07.2025 passed in Rent Appeal No.133 of 2025 are liable to be set aside and the same are hereby set aside.

13. Considering the fact that shop in dispute is situated in District Varanasi and the petitioner is paying monthly rent of Rs.110/- of the shop in question, as such, the same should be enhanced to Rs.4,000/- per month. The petitioner shall pay/deposit the amount of Rs.4,000/- per month to the landlord under this order towards the rent of the shop in question from September, 2025. The aforementioned amount shall be paid/deposited by the petitioner by 7th of every month to the landlord.

14. The instant petition is, accordingly, allowed and matter is remitted back before the Rent Authority to register the Case No.1363 of 2024 on its original number and decide the same a fresh on merit in following manner/ direction to the Rent Authority/Parties:- (i) Both the parties are directed to appear before the Rent Authority, Varanasi on 25.08.2025. (ii) The Rent Authority shall decide the proceeding of Case No.1363 of 2024 expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Anurag/- ANURAG JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad