The Allahabad High Court on Monday dismissed the revision filed by a Kanpur-based tenant, Ashok Kumar Gupta, upholding an earlier eviction decree passed against him. However, showing leniency, the Court granted him a year's time to vacate the premises, subject to filing an undertaking. The decision came from Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, who observed that no ground existed to interfere with the trial court’s well-reasoned findings.
"The tenant cannot deny the landlord's title at one stage and later admit tenancy through contradictions," the bench remarked during the hearing.
Background
The dispute dates back to a property initially owned by one Ram Murti, who had let out the accommodation to the tenant's father, late Jagneshwar Dayal Gupta, around 1998–99 at a modest rent of ₹300 per month. Over time, the rent rose, and in 2013, the landlord issued a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act for eviction, citing default in rent payments since January 2011.
Subsequently, a small causes suit (SCC Suit No. 55 of 2013) was filed for eviction and arrears of rent. The tenant contested the claim, denying Ram Murti’s ownership in his written statement while, paradoxically, accepting tenancy in an additional plea. This inconsistency became central to the landlord’s argument.
Counsel Arpit Agarwal, appearing for the tenant, argued that the property had originally been rented to his father, and hence, the tenancy rights and rent liability were wrongly attributed to him. He also contended that rent deposits were made under Section 30 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, making the eviction notice invalid.
Court's Observations
Justice Agarwal found the tenant’s pleadings self-contradictory.
"In paragraph one, the tenant denied the landlord's title, yet in paragraph eighteen, he clearly admitted that the accommodation had been let out to his father by Ram Murti," the court noted.
The bench further held that the trial court rightly concluded that the U.P. Rent Act, 1972 did not apply in this matter, as the monthly rent was ₹3,500 - above the statutory limit for the Act's protection. Therefore, the eviction could proceed under the Transfer of Property Act.
Counsel for the respondents, Advocate Sumit Daga, highlighted that after the father’s death, no rent was deposited by the present tenant.
"Admission of tenancy without payment of rent weakens the tenant’s case beyond recovery," he submitted.
Agreeing with this stance, the Court found that the trial court's findings were neither perverse nor legally unsound. The bench emphasized that once a tenant admits tenancy, he cannot later evade responsibility by disputing ownership or applicability of rent laws.
Decision
Concluding the matter, Justice Agarwal held that there was no merit in the revision petition.
"No case for interference is made out. The revision fails and is hereby dismissed," the judgment read.
However, acknowledging the long occupation of the premises and "to avoid abrupt hardship," the Court granted one year’s time to the tenant to vacate the property, provided he files an undertaking within ten days before the trial court. Failure to do so would render the eviction order immediately executable.
With this, a decade-long tenancy battle between the Gupta family and the heirs of late Usha Rani Chhabra reached its judicial end.
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Gupta vs. Smt. Usha Rani Chhabra & Others
Case No.: S.C.C. Revision No. 130 of 2025