Trustees Are Recognized Landlords Under Section 2(b): Allahabad High Court

In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has dismissed multiple petitions questioning the orders of the Additional District Magistrate (EC)/Rent Authority, Agra, concerning the maintainability of applications filed under Section 10 of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021. The judgment, delivered by Justice Ashutosh Srivastava, underscores the statutory definition of 'landlord' and reaffirms the non-applicability of certain Civil Procedure Code provisions to proceedings under the U.P. Tenancy Act.

The series of petitions arose from a dispute where Pradeep Kumar Gupta, as the Secretary of Seth Girwar Lal Pyare Lal Shiksha Trust, filed applications under Section 10 of the U.P. Tenancy Act for the determination of rent for various properties in Agra. The petitioners, tenants of these properties, contested the applications, arguing that Gupta, as a mere Secretary, did not qualify as a landlord under the Act and hence lacked standing to file the applications. They sought dismissal of the applications based on this contention and other procedural grounds.

Justice Srivastava emphasized that the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, defines 'landlord' broadly to include trustees. "The term 'landlord' under Section 2(b) of the Act includes a trustee or guardian receiving rent on behalf of another," the court noted. This interpretation is crucial as it directly includes trustees like Pradeep Kumar Gupta within the ambit of landlords who can file applications under the Act.

The court addressed the procedural objections raised by the petitioners. The petitioners had argued that the applications under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC should have been decided upfront, questioning the jurisdiction and maintainability of Gupta’s applications. The court, however, clarified that the U.P. Tenancy Act explicitly excludes the application of the Civil Procedure Code, except for specific provisions. "The Rent Authority and Rent Tribunal are to be guided by principles of natural justice and have the power to regulate their own procedure," the judgment stated.

Responding to arguments regarding procedural defects in the applications filed by Gupta, the court noted that such defects were curable. The description error in the applications could be amended, and Gupta's standing as a trustee was sufficient for the applications to proceed.

Justice Srivastava's judgment extensively covered the legislative intent behind the U.P. Tenancy Act, highlighting its purpose to streamline and expedite rent-related disputes. By excluding certain CPC provisions, the Act aims to reduce procedural delays. The judgment upheld the principle that objections to maintainability could be raised in the written statement and decided at the final hearing stage.

"The definition of 'landlord' under Section 2(b) includes trustees, thereby allowing them to file applications for rent determination," Justice Srivastava noted. "The procedural framework of the U.P. Tenancy Act is designed to ensure swift resolution of disputes, unfettered by the more cumbersome processes of the Civil Procedure Code."

The Allahabad High Court's ruling provides clarity on the interpretation of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, particularly concerning who qualifies as a landlord. By dismissing the petitions and directing the Rent Authority to proceed expeditiously, the judgment reinforces the legislative aim of efficient rent dispute resolution. This decision will likely streamline similar cases, reducing procedural challenges and ensuring timely justice.

Date of Decision: July 15, 2024

Nirmal Agarwal & Others vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta