In Brief
A landlord challenged a Writ Court's decision that set aside his eviction order against a tenant under the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The dispute centred on whether notice of eviction had been properly served. The Supreme Court held that no specific mode of notice is prescribed—oral or written notice suffices, and registered post is not mandatory. Since the Prescribed Authority and Appellate Authority had, based on the landlord's certificate of posting, affidavit, and attending circumstances (including the tenant's admission of the relationship), made concurrent findings that notice was properly served and received, the Writ Court erred in disturbing these findings. The Court allowed the appeal and directed the tenant to vacate within six months.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.