Summary eviction under U.P. rent law fails where old permission is not tied to a recognised Section 21 ground.

Section 43(2)(rr) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 applies only when the earlier permission under the repealed rent-control law is directly referable to a ground recognised by Section 21(1) or Section 21(2). A permission obtained for occupation of a residential building for business purposes does not fit that scheme, because the statutory proviso excludes such use from the summary route. The provision cannot be expanded to bypass that exclusion, and a fresh inquiry cannot be dispensed with on an unconnected old-Act permission. The application was therefore not maintainable and the rejection of eviction relief was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application under Section 43(2)(rr) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was maintainable where the earlier permission under Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 related to the landlord's occupation of a residential building for business purposes. (ii) Whether Section 43(2)(rr) could be invoked only when the earlier permission under the old Act was referable to a ground specified in Section 21(1) or Section 21(2) of the 1972 Act.

Issue (i): Whether an application under Section 43(2)(rr) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was maintainable where the earlier permission under Section 3 of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 related to the landlord's occupation of a residential building for business purposes.

Analysis: Section 21(1)(a) permits eviction on the ground of bona fide need for occupation by the landlord, but the proviso to Section 21(2) excludes an application for occupation of a residential building for business purposes. Clause (rr) of Section 43(2) dispenses with a fresh inquiry only where the earlier permission under the old Act is obtained on a ground that fits within Section 21(1) or Section 21(2). A permission obtained for converting a residential building to business use does not satisfy that requirement, and the proviso cannot be rendered redundant by an expansive reading of the enabling clause.

Conclusion: The application under Section 43(2)(rr) was not maintainable and was liable to be rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 43(2)(rr) could be invoked only when the earlier permission under the old Act was referable to a ground specified in Section 21(1) or Section 21(2) of the 1972 Act.

Analysis: Clause (r) preserves pending suits instituted on the basis of old-Act permission, whereas clause (rr) creates a summary eviction route only where the permission already obtained is co-relatable to a ground expressly recognized by Section 21. The two clauses operate in different fields. If the old permission cannot be mapped to a Section 21 ground, the matter falls outside clause (rr) and cannot be executed through that provision without fresh satisfaction.

Conclusion: Section 43(2)(rr) applies only where the earlier permission under Section 3 of the old Act corresponds to a ground under Section 21(1) or Section 21(2); otherwise it does not apply.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order of the High Court was set aside, and the rejection of the respondents' application for eviction was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: The summary eviction mechanism under Section 43(2)(rr) is available only when the earlier permission under the repealed rent-control law is directly referable to a ground expressly covered by Section 21 of the new Act; a permission for occupation of a residential building for business purposes falls outside that scheme because of the statutory exclusion.

---