The Apex Court on 28.01.2019, in Dr. H.K. Sharma v Shri Ram Lal[1], dismissed the appeal that had been made against the passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand‘s judgment and order. 

 FACTS:

The  respondent being the applicant had been the owner of the house which in which he had let out   a   portion   upon a monthly   rent   that was to be paid according to the agreement.   An application under Section 21(1)  (a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting  Rent and  Eviction)Act, 1972, had been filed by the respondent against  the appellant to seek the eviction from the house because of the bona fide requirement of the respondent for residence and his family members.  

The contention raised from the appellant’s side was that relation of    landlord   and   tenant   does not exist between the two parties as the house had been sold to the appellant giving rise to a new relation of seller and buyer. 

The application filed by the respondent was dismissed by the Prescribed   Authority   by an   order while upholding that as the   parties had entered into a sale as a result, payment of monthly rent was not needed since the relation of landlord and tenant had ceased to exist. 

 An appeal was filed by the respondent before the Appellate Court that was eventually dismissed while affirming the Prescribed Authority’s order.  Furthermore, a writ petition was filed before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital that permitted the petition while and setting aside Appellate Court’s and  the  Prescribed  Authority’s orders. The recall application was also dismissed by the High Court by its order resulting in the filing of appeal by special leave in the Apex Court.

 ISSUE: Was it justified from the part of the  High Court   to allow the application filed by the respondent    under Section 21(1) (a) of the UP Act. 

DECISION HELD BY THE APEX COURT:

The Apex Court while dismissing the appeal held the decision concluded by the   High Court which was that a mere agreement pertaining to sale shall not   terminate the relation of a landlord-­tenant unless and otherwise  there is a stipulation in that agreement to that regard.It   was   further held that as the agreement relied upon by the appellant (opposite party)  was not  registered , the party shall  not entitled for raising a plea of  part performance under the  Transfer of Property Act,   1882    against   the tenant( respondent). The Apex Court further went on upholding the decision of the High Court with regard to the respondent who being an old man possessed the right of living in his own house.