Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972

51 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

ANIL KALRAversusJ.D. PANDEY AND OTHERS

2015 INSC 71029 September 2015Disposed off

The case concerned a century‑old building in Lucknow covered by the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The landlord, Anil Kalra, obtained a release order under s.16(1)(b) for demolition, but several occupants, allegedly placed by the respondents through a cooperative soc

SUDERSHAN DEVI AND ANR.versusSUSHILA DEVI AND ANR.

1999 INSC 44829 September 1999Dismissed

The landlord Sushila Devi filed an eviction suit under Section 20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, alleging that the tenant had defaulted in rent for 33 months. The summons fixed the first hearing for 22‑Feb‑1990, but the tenant, who died in 1991, deposited t

RAM NARAYAN SHARMAversusSHAKUNTALA GAUR

2002 INSC 24129 April 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Ram Narayan Sharma, applied for allotment of a vacant premises under Section 16(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The landlord died, his heirs were substituted, and an allotment order was made, allowing the appellant to take possession. The h

YADVENDRA ARYA AND ANR.versusMUKESH KUMAR GUPTA

2007 INSC 119628 November 2007Dismissed

The landlord, an unemployed graduate, filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, seeking release of a shop he let to tenants so that he could start his own electrical goods business, claiming a bona‑fide need. The prescribed aut

SAMAR PAL SINGHversusCHITRANJAN SINGH

2015 INSC 69928 September 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord, Samar Pal Singh, sued his tenant, Chitranjan Singh, for eviction and arrears of rent under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The tenant deposited the full arrears with interest and costs, invoking protection under Section 20(4) of the Act. The High Cou

RISHI KUMAR GOVILversusMAQSOODAN AND ORS.

2007 INSC 34528 March 2007Dismissed

The landlady, Maqsoodan, purchased a shop and filed a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, claiming a bonafide need to set up a firearms‑repair business for her son. The prescribed authority allowed eviction in 1986; the ap

DR. H. K. SHARMAversusSHRI RAM LAL

2019 INSC 10028 January 2019Dismissed

The landlord, Shri Ram Lal, let a portion of his house to Dr. H.K. Sharma under a tenancy agreement dated 22 July 1985. In 2008 the landlord filed an eviction application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, claiming bona‑fide need for the pre

BRIJ SUNDER KAPOOR ETC. ETC.versusIST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE & ORS.

1988 INSC 32727 October 1988Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act 13) applies to cantonment areas in Uttar Pradesh and whether the Central Government’s notifications of 1 Sept 1973 and 17 Feb 1982, issued under the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws)

GULSHERA KHANAMversusAFTAB AHMAD

2016 INSC 91927 September 2016Appeal(s) allowed

Gulshera Khanam, the landlady of a shop, sought eviction of tenant Aftab Ahmad on the ground that her married daughter, a co‑owner of the building, needed the adjacent shop to expand her medical clinic. The lower authorities held that the daughter, as a female with a legal right of residence, fell within the definition

NUTAN KUMAR AND ORS.versusIIND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND ORS.

2002 INSC 41227 September 2002Disposed off

The appellant landlord filed an ejectment suit under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 for non‑payment of rent. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the lease was entered into in contravention of the Act and therefore void. The Allahabad High Court Full B

RAMESH CHANDversusPRESCRIBED AUTHORITY & ANR.

1989 INSC 21227 July 1989Appeal(s) allowed

The tenant Ramesh Chand sought to enforce the landlord's promise to provide a new shop at reasonable rent and alternative accommodation after demolition of the existing premises. The landlord had obtained permission to file an eviction suit under the 1947 U.P. Rent Act, giving an assurance-cum‑undertaking to the tenant

SMT. BIMLA DEVI ETC.versus1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AND OTHERS ETC.

1984 INSC 6827 March 1984Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court considered two appeals filed by Bimla Devi, a landlord, seeking eviction of her tenant from the remaining portion of a house she partially occupied. The central issue was the interpretation of Explanation (iv) to Section 21(1)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Ev

MOHD. INAMversusSANJAY KUMAR SINGHAL & ORS.

2020 INSC 44526 June 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Mohd. Inam, challenged a vacancy declaration made by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer under Section 12(1)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, alleging that only his family members occupied the premises and therefore the vacancy provision was

SRI SIDHHARTH VIYAS &ANR.versusRAVI NATH MISRA & ORS.

2014 INSC 80525 November 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether Section 12(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, which deems a tenancy vacant when the tenant or a family member acquires another residential building, applies when such acquisition occurs before the Act becomes applicable to the

PRAKASH BHALOTIA (D) THR HIS LRSversusINDRA CHANDRA GOYAL (D) THRU. LRS

[2024] 9 S.C.R. 98825 September 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord owned Shop No. 4 in Gorakhpur and leased it to the tenant on a five‑year fixed tenancy starting 1 July 1985, with a clause for rent increase upon consent after expiry. After the tenancy ended on 30 June 1990, the tenant remained in possession without a renewed lease and failed to pay the agreed rent and pe

NIRBHAI KUMARversusMAYA DEVI & ORS.

2009 INSC 39324 March 2009Appeal(s) allowed

The appeal concerned the interpretation of the proviso to Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The appellant, Nirbhai Kumar, argued that the three‑year bar on eviction of a sitting tenant after a change of ownership and the six‑month notice requirem

MOHD. AZEEMversusDISTRICT JUDGE, ALIGARH AND ORS.

1985 INSC 10123 April 1985Case Allowed

Manzoor Hussain, a tenant of a residential premises in Aligarh, died in 1969 leaving a widow, three sons and a daughter who continued to occupy the premises and pay rent. One son, Nairn, built a separate house in the same city in 1978‑80. The Prescribed Authority, relying on section 12(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Bui

KULDEEP KUMAR DUBEY & ORS.versusRAMESH CHANDRA GOYAL (D) TH LRS.

2015 INSC 6021 January 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The father of the appellants, Raj Kumar, owned a shop that was let to the respondent. After Raj Kumar’s death, his brother Shiv Kumar filed an eviction suit, and upon Shiv’s death his sons Kuldeep Kumar and Pradeep Kumar were substituted as plaintiffs as heirs. The trial court decreed eviction in favour of the plaintif

G.C.KAPOORversusNAND KUMAR BHASIN AND ORS.

2001 INSC 57420 November 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord, G.C. Kapoor, let a premises to a tenant when his son Rohit was a minor. After Rohit obtained a post‑graduate diploma in computer science, the landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, claiming a bon

GEETA GUPTAversusRAMESH CHANDRA DWIVEDI & ORS.

2021 INSC 50020 September 2021Dismissed

Geeta Gupta purchased a property in 1994 that had been let to Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi since 1975 under an agreement with Dhruv Narayan Tripathi, who claimed power of attorney from the original owners. The second respondent applied under Section 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Evi

KRISHNA KUMAR RASTOGIversusSUMITRA DEVI

2014 INSC 55020 August 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord, Krishna Kumar Rastogi, filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 seeking the eviction of tenant Sumitra Devi so that his son could occupy the shop. The Prescribed Authority allowed the landlord’s application, but t

MEERA DEVI (D) THR. LR.versusDINESH CHANDRA JOSHI (D) THR. LRS.

2024 INSC 72519 September 2024Appeal(s) allowed

Meera Devi, the owner of a house in Jhansi, filed an eviction suit against tenant Dinesh Chandra Joshi for non-payment of rent. The trial court ordered eviction and payment of compensation, but the High Court later set aside the suit. During the pendency of the appeal, the Supreme Court directed the tenant to pay rent

ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS.versusSITA RAM

2001 INSC 21919 April 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord sought eviction of the tenants under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, claiming a bona‑fide need for the shop to start his son’s business. The Prescribed Authority accepted the claim and ordered eviction with compensation. The Appell

GANPAT ROY AND OTHERS ETC.versusTHE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND OTHERS ETC.

1985 INSC 6219 March 1985Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined two civil appeals filed by tenants (Ganpat Roy and others) who challenged orders notifying a "deemed vacancy" of their non‑residential premises under Section 12(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The tenants argued that the District M

SHRI MUNDRI LALversusSMT. SUSHILA RANI AND ANR.

2007 INSC 95218 September 2007Dismissed

The tenant, Shri Mundri Lal, challenged an eviction suit filed by his landlord, Smt. Sushila Rani, under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, contending that the premises were a "new construction" and therefore exempt under Section 2(2) of the Act. The trial court held

SMT. SUDAMA DEVI & ORS.versusVIJAY NATH GUPTA & ANR.

2018 INSC 35017 April 2018Dismissed

The landlord filed an eviction suit under Section 20(2)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 for non‑payment of rent. The trial court and the revisional court decreed eviction. The tenant appealed, contending that he was entitled to the relief of Section 20(4), wh

SHAYAM BABUversusDISTRICT JUDGE, MORADABAD & OTHERS

1983 INSC 19714 December 1983Appeal(s) allowed

The landlords of a shop applied under section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 for release of the premises for personal use, invoking the fourth proviso which requires consideration of comparative hardship. The shop had been let to Krishan Kumar, who, with the

KEDAR NATH AGRAWAL (DEAD) AND ANR.versusDHANRAJI DEVI (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANR.

2004 INSC 60113 October 2004Case Partly allowed

The landlords applied under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 for eviction of a shop occupied by the tenant, claiming a bona‑fide requirement. The Prescribed Authority, the District Judge and the High Court all upheld the eviction. During the pend

R.K. PARASHERversusDINESH KUMAR AND ORS.

2000 INSC 13613 March 2000Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Dr. R.K. Parashar, was allotted Shop No.123‑A by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer, a decision later upheld by the Additional District Judge. Respondent No.1, Dinesh Kumar, who had earlier attempted to regularise his occupation of the same shop through applications under Rule 10(6) and Section 14 of

HARKESH CHANDversusKRISHAN GOPAL MEHTA & ORS.

2017 INSC 12813 February 2017

The appellant, a tenant of a small shop in Doiwala, Dehradun, received a notice of termination under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on 19 September 1972 and the landlord filed an eviction suit on 1 October 1972. The issue was whether the tenancy was protected by the United Provinces (Temporary) Control of

R.K.SHUKLAversusSUDHRIST NARAIN ANAND (DEAD) BY L.RS.

2008 INSC 64412 May 2008Dismissed

The appellant, R.K. Shukla, obtained an allotment of a premises after the Rent Control & Eviction Officer (RC&EO) declared it vacant, despite the landlord Sudhrist Narain Anand (deceased) asserting physical occupation. The landlord challenged the allotment and the vacancy declaration in a writ petition before the Allah

SHAMSHAD AHMAD & ORS.versusTILAK RAJ BAJAJ (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

2008 INSC 103211 September 2008Appeal(s) allowed

The landlords, owners of a shop in Dehradun, sought eviction of the tenant under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, claiming a bona‑fide requirement to run a readymade garment business by the retired husband Matloob Ahmad and his daughter Kum Fara

ACHAL MISRAversusRAMA SHANKER SINGH AND ORS.

2005 INSC 19611 April 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord (Achal Misra) sought to set aside orders of allotment of two floors of a building to tenants under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, arguing that the earlier declaration of vacancy was erroneous and that the High Court erred in holding that the vacancy

JOGINDER PALversusNAVAL KISHORE BEHAL

2002 INSC 28010 May 2002Dismissed

The landlord, Joginder Pal, filed an eviction petition under Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, claiming the premises were needed for the office of his chartered‑accountant son. The tenant, Naval Kishore Behal, occupied the premises for non‑residential purposes and contested the e

ASHOK KUMAR & ORS.versusI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, NAINITAL & ORS.

1981 INSC 89 January 1981Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, landlords of a building occupied by tenant Keshar Singh who ran Hotel Waldrof, obtained a decree for his eviction due to rent default. Anticipating vacancy, they filed an application under Section 16(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 to have

AJAI AGRAWAL AND ORS.versusHAR GOVIND PRASAD SINGHAL AND ORS.

2005 INSC 5488 November 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, legal heirs of a tenant, challenged a suit for recovery of arrears and eviction filed by the landlord who claimed periodic rent enhancements to Rs 200 and Rs 400 per month after the tenant carried out improvements. The lower courts had accepted the landlord's oral agreement for such enhancements based s

SMT. VIJAY LAXMI GANGALversusMAHENDRA PRATAP GRAG

1985 INSC 1308 May 1985Dismissed

The appellant-landlady sued the respondent-tenant for possession of a premises, alleging arrears of rent of Rs.3,960 at a rate of Rs.360 per month and that the property fell within the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The tenant contended the rent was only Rs.125 per m

RAM KRISHNA SINGH & ORS.versusTHAKURJI SHIVJI

2010 INSC 6827 October 2010Dismissed

The case concerned a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. An ex‑parte decree against the original tenant was set aside after the court found that summons had not been served, and the tenants deposited the arrears

SUNITA RANI & ORS.versusSRI CHAND & ORS

2009 INSC 10317 August 2009Case Partly allowed

The landlord filed eviction suits against tenants occupying a go‑down, a shop and a kothari. The lower authority dismissed all three suits; on appeal the go‑down was ordered to be evicted while the shop and kothari were retained by the tenants. The landlord then filed writ petitions in the Allahabad High Court challeng

DEEPAK TANDON & ANR.versusRAJESH KUMAR GUPTA

2019 INSC 1597 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, owners of a house in Allahabad, filed an eviction application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, claiming a bona‑fide need to use the premises for their own commercial business. The Prescribed Authority and the District Judge

NIDHIversusRAM KRIPAL SHARMA (D) THROUGH LRS.

2017 INSC 1137 February 2017Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Nidhi, the owner of a non‑residential building, sought possession of the premises under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, claiming a bona‑fide requirement to house her ailing grandparents and her younger sister. The Prescribed Auth

SHIV SINGH CHAKversusBABY JAIN

2008 INSC 1487 February 2008Dismissed

The respondent, a landlord, filed an eviction petition under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, seeking to recover a non‑residential shop for her husband's motor‑parts business. The appellant, the tenant, contended that he owned other shops and co

SMT. SYED SUGARA ZAIDIversusLAEEQ AHMAD (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

2017 INSC 11936 December 2017Case Allowed

The appellant-landlord filed an eviction suit against the respondents-tenants after the ten‑year lease expired and no fresh lease was executed. The tenants continued in possession, constructed shops and sub‑let the premises to a third party, and the landlord alleged defaults in rent and municipal tax. The Supreme Court

NIYAS AHMAD KHANversusMAHMOOD RAHMAT ULLAH KHAN & ANR.

2008 INSC 5845 May 2008Case Allowed

The tenant's rent was fixed at Rs.150 per month under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The landlords sought eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement, but the eviction petition was dismissed by the prescribed and appellate authorities. The landlords then filed

MAN SINGHversusSHAMIM AHMED (DEAD) THR. LRS

2023 INSC 3235 April 2023Dismissed

Man Singh, a tenant of a shop in Saharanpur, paid a rent of Rs.250 per month. When the landlord refused to accept the rent, the tenant deposited the rent in the court under Section 30 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The landlord later served a notice demanding

MOHD. AYUB & ANR.versusMUKESH CHAND

2012 INSC 55 January 2012Disposed off

The landlords, Mohd. Ayub & Anr., sought eviction of tenant Mukesh Chand under Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, claiming a bona‑fide need for the premises for their unemployed sons. The lower authorities dismissed the application, relying on the landlords'

VINEET KUMARversusMANGAL SAIN WADHERE

1984 INSC 65 January 1984Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord filed a suit for eviction, arrears of rent and damages against the tenant, alleging that the premises were not covered by the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 because the building was less than ten years old at the time of filing. The tenant contended that

HARBHAJAN SINGH ETCversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

2019 INSC 13154 December 2019Dismissed

The appellants, tenants of shops in a Gurudwara, challenged the Punjab Religious Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1997 on the ground that it withdrew the protection afforded to them under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act, 1949 and violated Article 14. The Supreme Court held that the State

BANARSI LALversusSMT. SAGHIRAN BEGUM

1988 INSC 1283 May 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord obtained a decree for eviction of the tenant's shop, with the trial court ordering each party to bear its own costs. While the appeal was pending, the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 came into force, requiring a tenant to deposit the landlord's full costs

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search