Jitendra Kumar Gupta And Another vs. Learned Rent Tribunal Special Judge P.C. Act Iv Lko. And 2 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, a tenant, is challenging an order dated 25.07.2024, passed under section 21(2) of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, allowing the landlord's application for eviction and arrears of rent. The petitioner's appeal against this order was dismissed by an appellate order dated 22.05.2025. The lease for the shop was for twenty years, commencing on 03.04.2000 and ending on 02.04.2020. The petitioner ceased paying rent after the lease term ended. A notice demanding arrears and terminating tenancy was served in 2022. The petitioner resisted the eviction proceedings, but their defenses were found unsubstantiated. A discrepancy in the premises number (253/134 vs. 256/134) was noted, but both courts found it to be a typographical error, supported by the petitioner's GST registration showing the correct address and no dispute over the actual leased accommodation.
Held
The Court held that the discrepancy in the premises number was a typographical error and not a substantial defect that vitiated the eviction proceedings. Both the lower courts had analyzed the evidence, including the petitioner's GST registration which reflected the correct address, and concluded that there was no dispute regarding the actual accommodation leased. The Court found that the findings of fact recorded by both the courts were sound. Furthermore, the conduct of the petitioner, who had not paid rent for four years after the lease expired, disentitled them from any discretionary relief. The Court dismissed the writ petition on merits. However, considering the petitioner's request for time to vacate, the Court granted six months, until 31.03.2026, subject to the petitioner filing an undertaking within two weeks to vacate and hand over possession, and paying the balance rent within four weeks. Failure to comply would result in the eviction order being enforced forthwith. The eviction was stayed until 31.03.2026 if the undertaking and payment were made.
Key Issues
1. Whether the courts below erred in allowing the eviction and arrears of rent despite a discrepancy in the premises number mentioned in the eviction application versus the lease deed and GST registration? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on Section 21(2) of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the discrepancy in the premises number was a material defect that should have invalidated the eviction proceedings. They relied on the fact that the application for release mentioned one number while the lease deed and GST registration indicated another. Revenue/State's contention: The respondents (landlord and authorities) argued that the discrepancy was a mere typographical error, which was duly considered and explained by both the courts below. They pointed to the GST registration and the lack of dispute regarding the actual leased accommodation as evidence that the error was not substantial and did not mislead the petitioner. They also highlighted the petitioner's consistent non-payment of rent.
Sections Cited
Section 21(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5205 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.
Heard Sri Anurag Srivastava, the counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dilip Kumar Sharma who appears for the respondent landlord.
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 25.07.2024, passed under section 21(2) of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 whereby the application filed by the landlord for eviction and arrears of rent was allowed as well as, the appellate order dated 22.05.2025 whereby the appeal preferred was also dismissed.
From the perusal of the facts, it transpires that the shop in question was given on lease for a term of twenty years through a registered lease deed executed on 03.04.2000. The term of the lease came to end on 02.04.2020. The petitioner, who is a tenant, stopped the payment of rent, as such, a notice was served in the year 2022 demanding arrears of rent and terminating the tenancy. As the rent was not paid, proceedings were initiated under section 21(2) of the Act, the said proceedings were resisted by the tenant by taking various grounds, however, the defenses taken remain unsubstantiated at the instance of the tenant. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal, which too has been dismissed.
Before the appellate court, a feeble attempt was made to argue that the premises in question, which was leased premises, was numbered as 253/134, however in the application for release, the number was Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anurag Srivastava, Kabir Ahmad Khan Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Jitendra Kumar Gupta And Another .....Petitioner(s) Learned Rent Tribunal Special Judge P.C. Act Iv Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)
mentioned as 256/134. Both the courts have analysed the evidence and recorded a finding that it was a typographical error. The court also took into consideration the GST registration of the petitioner, which depicted the correct address and there being no dispute with regard to actual accommodation, which was leased out, both the courts have rightly passed the order of eviction.
The counsel for the respondent landlord also states that for the first time, the rent was deposited after the lease period had come to an end in the year 2024, that makes it clear that for a period of four years from 2000 up to 2024, no rent was paid by the petitioner.
Thus, on consideration that finding of facts have been recorded by both the courts and. the conduct of the petitioner also demonstrates that for a period of four years, even the admitted rent was not paid, the same dis- entitles the petitioner for any relief from this court in exercise of discretionary power.
The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
The counsel for the petitioner states that some reasonable time be granted to vacate the premises.
The counsel for the respondent states that his son is unemployed and requires the shop for setting up the son of the respondent landlord.
Considering the rival submissions, the petitioner is granted six months time i.e. up to 31.03.2026 to vacate the premises subject to, the petitioner filing an undertaking within two weeks from today in the form of an affidavit before the ADM undertaking to vacate the premises on or before 31.03.2026 and to handover the vacant and physical possession to the landlord and no one else. The balance amount of rent shall also be paid to the respondent landlord up to 31.03.2026 within four weeks.
The affidavit of undertaking within time granted and the balance amount of rent shall be paid positively within a period of four weeks from today failing which the order of eviction shall be enforced forthwith and a report shall be sent to this court.
In case, the undertaking is filed and the amount is deposited as directed above, the eviction against the petitioner shall remain stayed till 31.03.2025. 13. With the said observations, the writ petition stands disposed off. September 2, 2025 VNP/- (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.