. After withdrawal of the SCC Suit No. 28 of 2014, the respondent no. 3 filed an application under Section 21 (1) of the UP Act No. 16 of 2021 which proceedings were registered as Application No. 290 of 2023 seeking ejectment of the petitioner from the shop no. 29 alleging that the petitioner is tenant of the shop no. 29 of premises No. CK62/19, 20, 21 and 22 and despite notice the Tenant/Petitioner has failed to vacate the premises which was required for rebuilding of the entire premises under clause (f) of Section 21 (2) of the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021. The tenant/ petitioner is in arrears of rent of Rs. 33,753/- but rent from 01.01.2021 Rs. 9120/- is claimed. It was also stated that monthly rent of Rs. 230/- per month was last revised in February 2010 which reached Rs. 518/- per month under U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021. Damages for use and occupation pendent lite and further @ Rs. 20,000/- per month till delivery of possession was claimed. Pursuant to the notice issued by the Rent Authority the Tenant/Petitioner appeared in the proceedings and filed his written statement alleging inter alia that the rent of the shop is Rs. 230/- per month which was never revised by the landlord/ respondent no. 3. Before filing of the proceedings of suit No. 28 of 2014 the rent was being deposited under Section 30 (1) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and after filing of the suit the amount was being deposited in the Suit no. 28 of 2014. The suit was got withdrawn on 12.11.2022 and as such on the date of the institution of the proceedings under the new Act of 2021 were not applicable as the respondent no. 3 is a Religious and Charitable Institution.

10. The Rent Authority after considering the materials on record vide order dated 30.06.2023 allowed the application under Section 21 (2) of the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021 and directed the ejectment of the petitioner from the shop No. 29 recording a finding of fact that there existed a relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondent no. 3 and the petitioner. The respondent no. 3 has served notice upon the petitioner in terms of the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021 requiring him to execute a Tenancy Agreement as per the requirement of the New Act and also demanded arrears of rent and when the Tenant/Petitioner failed to provide the information sought a notice dated 04.12.2022 was served terminating the tenancy. The Rent Authority also recorded the finding that the injunction order dated 30.10.2014 operating in favour of the Tenant/ petitioner was of no avail to the petitioner as the respondent no. 3 had drawn proceedings against the petitioner as per law and would have no bearing upon the proceedings under Section 21 (2) of the New Act of 2021. It also recorded the factum that there was no written Tenancy Agreement between the parties nor any evidence in this regard was brought on record during the course of the arguments and in the absence of a written agreement the provisions of Section 4 of the Act has been violated. Since the tenancy of the petitioner has already been terminated and the Tenant/Petitioner has not vacated the premises the application of the respondent no. 3 landlord in form 7 is liable to be allowed and was allowed.

11. An appeal was preferred by the Tenant/petitioner against the order of the Rent Authority dated 30.06.2023 before the Rent Tribunal which was registered as Rent Appeal No. 145 of 2023. The Rent Tribunal under the order dated 16.01.2024 has dismissed the Rent Appeal.

12. In the Appeal it was urged that the provisions of the UP Act No. 16 of 2021 were not applicable and the Application under Section 21 (2) was not maintainable as the Landlord/ Respondent is a registered Public Charitable Trust and the Act does not apply to it by virtue of Section 3 (iv) of the Act. It was also urged that the Application under Section 21 (2) was not maintainable in view of Section 46 (2) of the Act inasmuch as the notice dated 22.09.2022 was given on which date the SCC Suit No. 28 of 2014 was maintainable and was liable to be continued as per Section 46 (2) but the same was withdrawn only on 07.10.2022. It was also urged that as per Section 31 of the Act a negotiated settlement of the dispute ought to have been attempted by both the Rent Authority and the Rent Tribunal and failure to attempt the same has rendered the orders passed illegal. It was further urged that the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021 contemplates existence of a written Tenancy Agreement between the parties. Section 4 (3) of the Act requires the landlord to upload the details of the tenant on the portal and thereafter inform the tenant to get executed a Tenancy Agreement. No Tenancy Agreement was uploaded by the Landlord/ Respondent on the portal and straight away notice was served upon the Tenant/ Petitioner to execute Tenancy Agreement on unreliable rent. The provisions of Section 4 (3) were clearly violated and no benefit could be derived therefrom by the landlord/respondent.

13. The Rent Tribunal found that the Tenant/ petitioner had not complied with the provisions of Section 35 (1) Proviso which provides that the Appellant to pre deposit 50% of the entire payable amount under the impugned order of the Rent Authority. The Rent Tribunal computed the amount to be Rs. 1,09,977/- of which 50% was required to be deposited but the Appellant admittedly deposited only Rs. 4600/-. It accordingly held the Appeal to be not maintainable. The Court finds no error in the approach adopted by the Rent Tribunal.

14. On the question of Landlord/Respondent no. 3 being a Public Trust or a Religious Charitable Institution the Rent Tribunal took note of the fact that the Tenant/Petitioner had taken contradictory stands regarding the character of the respondent no. 3 In the SCC Suit he took the stand that the premises in question was not the property of the Idol but is the property of a Private Trust. However, before the Rent Authority a contrary stand was taken that the respondent no. 3 is a charitable Religious Trust and exempted from the provisions of the UP Act No. 16 of 2021. The Rent Tribunal on the appreciation of the materials on record returned a finding that no Notification under Section 3 (iii) of the UP Act No. 16 of 2021 had been issued or if issued the same has not been brought on record. The Rent Tribunal accordingly concluded that the Release Application under Section 21 (2) of the Act was maintainable.

15. This Court has examined the provisions of Section 3 (iii) and 3 (iv) of the Act and finds that the mandate of the Section is to exempt the applicability of the Act to premises owned by Religious or Charitable Institution as may be specified by the notification by the State Government. The Rent Tribunal found that no such Notification by the State Government has been issued or filed on record. Likewise Section 3 (iv) provides exemption to premises owned by a Waqf registered under the Waqf Act 1995 or by any Public Trust under applicable law. The respondent no. 3 on the owning saying of the tenant petitioner is a Private Trust and as such properties owned by it are not exempt. In the opinion of the Court there is no error or illegality in the conclusion drawn by the Rent Tribunal.

16. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the tenant/petitioner to the effect that the application under Section 21 (1) of the Act was not maintainable as a SCC Suit, being SCC Suit No. 28 of 2014 was liable to be continued in terms of Section 46 (2) of the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021 is concerned, the Court is of the opinion that it is the prerogative of the landlord/respondent to have either continued with the proceedings of the SCC Suit No. 28 of 2014 or initiate fresh proceedings under the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021. The provisions of the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021 does not bar initiation of fresh proceedings under the Act if proceedings for the same relief are pending under other enactments. It is a matter of debate as to whether the proceedings of the SCC Suit No. 28 of 2014 could or could not continue in terms of Section 46 (2) of the Act. However, this Court refrains from dwelling into the said aspect for the reason that pendency or otherwise of the suit proceedings would not affect the present proceedings as the Notice dated 4.12.2022 was served after the SCC suit had been withdrawn. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not merit consideration.

17. It is next submitted that Section 31 of the U.P. Act No. 16 of 2021 contemplates negotiated settlement of the disputes and the failure of the Rent Authority and the Rent Tribunal to attempt a settlement has rendered the orders passed illegal.

18. In the opinion of the Court, a perusal of the provision contained under Section 31 of the Act, certain discretion is assigned to the Rent Authority or to the Rent Tribunal to refer appropriate cases to the appropriate authority under the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 to explore a settlement. The reference is not mandatory in all cases. Besides, settlement of dispute being an voluntary act is required to be availed and pressed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not placed before this Court any material to demonstrate that a settlement of the dispute with the landlord/respondent was ever sought and pressed.

19. In the opinion of the Court, the non compliance of the provision of Section 31 of the Act is not fatal to the proceedings and the impugned orders cannot be set aside on this ground.

20. It has lastly been urged that the provisions of Section 4 (3) of the Act, which requires the landlord to upload the details of the tenant on the portal and thereafter inform the tenant to get executed a tenancy agreement, has been violated. No tenancy agreement was uploaded by the landlord/respondent on the portal and straight away notice was served upon the tenant/petitioner to execute Tenancy Agreement on unrealistic rent.

21. A perusal of the provisions contained in Section 4 of the Act, which relates to Tenancy Agreement reveals that subsection (1) of Section 4 commences with a non obstinate clause and as such, has an overriding effect over the other provisions under the Act. It provides that no person after the commencement of the Act of 2021 shall let or take on rent any premises except by an agreement in writing which shall be informed to the Rent Authority jointly by the landlord and tenant in the form specified in the First Schedule provided the tenancy is not residential for a period of less than 12 months in which case no such information is required to be informed to the Rent Authority. Sub-section (2) relates to a situation when both the landlord and tenant jointly fail to inform the execution of the Tenancy Agreement in which case the landlord and tenant shall separately inform the Rent Authority about execution of the Tenancy Agreement within a specified time.

22. Sub Section (3) relates to a tenancy created before the commencement of the Act. Sub-clause (a) thereof deals with a situation where an agreement in writing was entered between the landlord and tenant in which case they shall jointly present a copy thereof to the Rent Authority within three months of the commencement of the Act. Sub-clause (b) on the other hand deals with a situation where no agreement in writing was entered into between landlord and tenant in which case they shall enter into an agreement in writing with regard to that tenancy and present the case to the Rent Authority within three months of the commencement of the Act. The proviso takes into consideration a situation where the landlord or the tenant fail to present jointly a copy of the Tenancy Agreement or fail to reach agreement within specified period such landlord and tenant shall separately file the particulars about such tenancy with the Rent Authority within one month from the date of expiry of the period mentioned in Clause (b) of subsection 3 of Section 4 in the Form specified in First Schedule. If the landlord has submitted his particulars within the time specified but the tenant fails to submit such particulars, the landlord may file an application for eviction of the tenant on that ground alone. Though the provision visualizes a situation where a tenant fails to comply with provisions of submitting particulars giving the landlord a ground to seek eviction of the tenant on the ground of default in submitting the particulars but the provision is silent about the outcome of a default at the instance of the landlord. The intention of the legislature is obvious that it would not affect the rights of the landlord to file for eviction of the tenant. Sub Clause 4 deals with providing the digital platform in Hindi and English enabling submission of the documents in such form and manner prescribed. The Sub-section (5) of Section 4 provides that the Rent Authority after receiving information about the execution of Tenancy Agreement along with the documents specified in the First Schedule shall provide a Unique Identification Number to the parties. The Sub-section (6) of Section 4 provides that the terms of authorization of the Property Manager, if any, by the landlord to deal with the tenant shall be as agreed to by the landlord and tenant in the Tenancy Agreement. Sub-section (7) of Section 4 provides that the information provided under Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) shall be conclusive proof of the facts relating to tenancy and matters connected therewith and in absence of any statement of information, the landlord may file an application for eviction on this ground alone.

23. A conjoint reading of the various sub-sections of Section 4 of the Act reveals that the intention of legislature for requiring both the landlord and the tenant to inform to the Rent Authority in the form specified in the First Schedule within a certain time frame is to treat the information as conclusive proof of the facts relating to the tenancy and matters connected with it. It does not appear to be the sine qua non for maintaining an application under Section 21 (2) of the Act. Where the tenancy is admitted, in the opinion of the Court, no such information as contemplated under Section 4 of the Act is warranted. Where the tenancy or its terms are disputed, it is always open for the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective cases before the respective authorities.

24. The Court finds no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

25. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the Court finds no error or illegality in the order of the Rent Authority dated 30.6.2023 as also the order of the Rent Tribunal dated 16.1.2024 so as to warrant any interference in the exercise of its’ extra ordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. All the aforesaid writ petitions lack merit and are accordingly, dismissed.

26. Parties to bear their own costs.

Gist of the Judgement

Key Points from the Judgment
The Allahabad High Court dismissed the tenant’s writ appeal, upholding the eviction order issued by the Rent Tribunal and Rent Authority against the tenant of shop no. 29 in Varanasi.
The court found no error in the Rent Tribunal’s approach and agreed with its conclusions on the following key issues:
The landlord’s status as a registered Public Charitable Trust did not exempt it from the provisions of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, as no relevant notification had been issued by the state government under Section 3(iii) or 3(iv) of the Act.
The tenant’s failure to comply with the requirement to pre-deposit 50% of the amount due under the impugned order of the Rent Authority rendered his appeal not maintainable under Section 35(1) proviso of the Act.
The failure to attempt a negotiated settlement under Section 31 of the Act did not invalidate the proceedings, as such negotiation was not mandatory in all cases.
The lack of a written tenancy agreement between the parties, as required under Section 4 of the Act, was not fatal to the landlord’s application for eviction under Section 21(2), as the tenancy itself was admitted.
In conclusion, the court found the eviction order to be valid, as the tenant had not provided sufficient evidence to support his claims against the landlord’s application for eviction under Section 21(2) of the U.P. Act.