Sidhharth Viyas v. Ravi Nath Misra
Background
A residential tenant's wife purchased another house in the same city after the tenancy began but while the rented building was still exempt from Uttar Pradesh rent-control legislation. The Rent Controller declared the rented accommodation vacant and released it to the landlord. The High Court reversed that order because the alternative house had been acquired before the Act became applicable to the tenancy.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court allowed the landlords' appeal and restored the Rent Controller's order. Section 12(3) covered acquisition of alternative residential accommodation after commencement of the tenancy even if acquisition preceded the Act's application to that particular building. The Court read the provision with its purpose and proviso, rather than treating the present-tense wording as an absolute temporal limit. It held that tenants who already had qualifying alternative accommodation were not entitled to retain the same protection as tenants who still needed it. The contrary part of the High Court's Full Bench decision was overruled.
Lesson Learnt
Under the provision interpreted here, buying qualifying alternative accommodation during a building's exemption period could still lead to deemed vacancy once rent control applied. The timing of the purchase alone did not preserve the tenant's protection.