In Brief
A tenant who fell into arrears of rent sued for eviction under the U.P. Urban Buildings Act sought relief under Section 20(4) by depositing back rent, claiming the proviso did not apply because his son (a family member owning a house in the same city) lived separately from him. The Supreme Court held that the plain language of the proviso—which bars relief when any family member owns a residential building in the same city—requires no condition that the family member live with the tenant. Once family ownership of a vacant or vacated house in the same city is proven, the tenant loses the benefit of Section 20(4) protection and cannot avoid eviction, as he has alternative housing available. The appeal was dismissed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.