Legal Analysis of Eviction Notice Requirement in Rent Control Act Case

Explore a detailed legal analysis surrounding the eviction notice requirements in a recent Rent Control Act case. The court’s examination of the prescribed procedures and evidentiary standards sheds light on the complexities of landlord-tenant relationships under such legislation. Discover the importance of fulfilling statutory obligations and the nuances of proving notice delivery in contentious eviction proceedings within the realm of rent control laws.


  • The appellant filed a release application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Rent Control Act for the shop in question.
  • The respondent contested the release application, stating that his need for the shop was greater than that of the appellant.
  • The Prescribed Authority allowed the release application after finding that the appellant had given prior notice and filed the application after the expiry of three years of the Sale Deed.
  • The appellant wanted to start a watch repair and sale business in the shop after renovation, as he had experience in this field.
  • The respondent, a tenant of the shop, was also in the watch repair and sale business and had been assisting his father in the same since 1960.
  • The High Court rejected the release application, setting aside the Orders of the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority that had allowed the release.
  • The appellant claimed that the respondent was a rich person with multiple commercial accommodations and would not be significantly affected by vacating the shop.
  • The Prescribed Authority found the appellant’s need for the shop in Lucknow to be bona fide and pressing.
  • No evidence was presented to show that the tenant made efforts to search for alternate accommodation.
  • The Prescribed Authority allowed the release application based on comparative hardship.
  • The Additional District Judge affirmed the landlord-tenant relationship and the service of a six-month eviction notice.
  • The Additional District Judge upheld the Prescribed Authority’s decision of the appellant’s genuine need.
  • The respondent filed a Rent Control Writ Petition, arguing lack of proper eviction notice.
  • The High Court ruled in favor of the respondent, citing lack of proper notice and questioning the appellant’s intentions to profit from the property.
  • The High Court dismissed the release application due to the absence of a six-month notice as mandated by the Act.

Also Read: Legal Analysis of Arbitration Award Enforcement


  • The Prescribed Authority rejected the tenant’s application to file the carbon copy of the receipt of under the certificate of posting, as it had become final and unchallenged.
  • The tenant admitted the landlord’s identity and filed an application to deposit rent in court.
  • The Prescribed Authority found that the notice of six months required by the landlord under Section 21 of the Rent Control Act was duly given before filing the suit.
  • Photocopy of the receipt of sending the notice under the certificate of posting was submitted by the landlord along with an affidavit.
  • The Prescribed Authority found that the tenant was given notice for eviction and considered various facts leading to this finding.
  • The High Court allowed the Writ Petition primarily because there was no presumption of service of notice as required by the Rent Control Act.
  • No specific mode of giving notice by the landlord to the tenant is provided, only that a notice must be given.
  • The law allows the filing of documents like the receipt under the certificate of posting along with an affidavit.
  • Evidence on affidavit was admissible before the Prescribed Authority.
  • Specific findings of fact regarding the notice being sent by the landlord and received by the tenant were duly affirmed by the Appellate Authority.
  • The Writ Court should not have upset these findings based on valid reasons and not mere presumptions of service.
  • Case laws cited by the tenant’s counsel were not directly relevant as they pertained to different laws where the Evidence Act was applicable.
  • The Rent Control Act allows evidence to be led on affidavit, unlike in criminal or marriage law cases.
  • Section 21(1)(a) of the Rent Control Act allows the prescribed authority to order the eviction of a tenant upon the landlord’s application if certain grounds are met.
  • One of the grounds for eviction is if the building is genuinely required by the landlord, either in its current state or after reconstruction, for the landlord, the landlord’s family member, or for the benefit of the person for whom the building is held.
  • The building can be required for residential purposes, for a profession, trade, calling, or for the objects of a public charitable trust if the landlord is a trustee.
  • There are specific conditions to be met for properties purchased after the Act’s commencement which have been tenant-occupied for over three years.
  • In such cases, the landlord must give a six-month notice to the tenant before making an eviction application on the grounds mentioned in clause (a).
  • In the case of V.S. Krishnan vs. Westfort Hi-Tech Hospitals (2008) 3 SCC 363, service of notice under the Companies Act was considered valid when sent under certificate of posting
  • In the case of Shiv Kumar vs State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 445, service of notice under the Industrial Disputes Act was held sufficient when coupled with other facts indicating notice
  • Notice sent under postal certificate may not be sufficient alone, but when combined with other circumstances indicating notice, it can be deemed as proper service
  • In Sumitra Devi vs. Sampuran Singh (2011) 3 SCC 556, the presumption of service of notice sent under postal certificate depends on the facts of each case
  • The case of Ranju vs Rekha Ghosh (2007) 14 SCC 81 highlighted that one month’s notice for eviction can be served in any manner as per the relevant Acts, with service under certificate of posting deemed sufficient
  • The appeal deserves to be allowed based on the clear admission of the respondent that the appellant was his landlord.
  • Actions of the respondent, such as depositing rent in court, supported the proof of service of notice.
  • Concurrent findings of fact by the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Authority were affirmed, unsettled by the Writ Court.
  • Both authorities found that the landlord’s hardship outweighed that of the tenant, justifying the release application.
  • The Writ Court did not specifically address or overturn this finding, which does not require interference by the current court.

Also Read: Extension of Limitation Period in Legal Proceedings


  • The appeal is allowed, setting aside the judgment of the Writ Court.
  • The release application of the landlord is affirmed.
  • The respondent (tenant) is directed to vacate the premises within six months.

Also Read: Quashing of FIR for Alleged Non-return of Stridhan Articles


Case Number: C.A. No.-002375-002375 / 2020

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *