In Brief
A tenant sought to overturn an eviction decree for non-payment of rent by claiming relief under Section 20(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Act. The tenant argued that because his son (who lived separately) owned a house in the city, the statutory proviso preventing eviction relief should not apply. The Supreme Court held that the proviso denies eviction relief to any tenant whose family member owns a vacant residential building in the same city, regardless of whether the family member resides with the tenant. The plain language of the statute requires no such condition of co-residence. The appeal was dismissed and the tenant granted three months to vacate on condition of paying arrears and use charges."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.