1. Tenant deposited rent under Section 6A of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, after the landlord refused to accept rent. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 758
1998(6) Supreme 284
Supreme Court of India
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
A.S. Anand, B.N. Kirpal and V.N. Khare, JJ.
Brij Bhushan -Appellant
versus
Kewal Kumar -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2755 of 1998
Decided on 5-8-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : M.L. Verma, Sr. Advocate with K.B. Rohtagi, Advocate.
For the Respondent : O.P. Sharma, Sr. Advocate, R.C. Gubrele, K.R. Gupta, Ashok Sudan, Advocates.
Important Points
Important Point
In the facts and situation the amount deposited by the tenant/respondent u/s. 6A of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 was valid tender to landlord (adjustable in eviction suit u/s. 13(2)(i) of the Act).
In the facts and situation the amount deposited by the tenant/respondent u/s. 6A of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 was valid tender to landlord (adjustable in eviction suit u/s. 13(2)(i) of the Act).
Subject
Landlord and Tenant - Rent Deposit
Act Referred
Headnote
Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973-Sections 6A and 13(2)(i)-Landlord’s eviction suit u/s. 13(2)(i) on ground of non-payment of rent @ Rs. 500/- p.m. to totalling Rs. 9000/- -Tenant having deposited earlier rent u/s. 6A alleging that landlord was not receiving rent and was also not issuing receipt of rent @ Rs. 500/- totalling Rs. 7500/- - And tendered balance Rs. 1500/- with interest and cost as contemplated by Section 13(2)(i)-Rent Controller holding tender u/s. 6A invalid and passing order of eviction-Appellate authority and High Court setting aside said order -Whether correct? (Yes)-Appeal dismissed.
Held : In the established facts and situation that the tenant had deposited the rent from 12.2.87 to 11.5.88 under Section 6A of the Act and had also tendered rent for the remaining period along with interest and cost as contemplated by the proviso to Section 13(2)(i) of the Act, the application for eviction ought to have been rejected by the learned Rent Controller. Both the appellate authority and the High Court, therefore, committed no error in setting aside the order of the Rent Controller and dismissing the ejectment application filed by the landlord under Section 13(2)(i) of the Act against the tenant. (Para 6)
For what we have said above, there is no merit in this appeal which fails, and, is hereby dismissed. No costs. (Para 7)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a deposit of rent under Section 6A is invalid if interest and costs are not paid. (Para 1 , 2 )
3. The Rent Controller erroneously imported the interest and cost requirements of the Section 13(2)(i) proviso into the procedure for deposits under Section 6A. (Para 5 )
4. A deposit under Section 6A of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, is valid without the payment of interest and costs. (Para 5 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 7 )
6. Does a deposit under Section 6A of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, require interest and costs to be valid?
No. The court held that Section 6A contains no requirement for the payment of interest and costs; such requirements are specific to the proviso of Section 13(2)(i) and cannot be imported into Section 6A. (Para 5 )
7. What is the legal effect of a rent deposit made under Section 6A of the Act?
A deposit received by the Controller under Section 6A is deemed to be a payment made by the tenant to the landlord in respect of the rent due. (Para 4 )
8. When is a tenant entitled to seek leave from the Controller to deposit rent under Section 6A?
A tenant may apply for leave to deposit rent if the landlord refuses to receive or grant a receipt for rent payable when tendered to them. (Para 4 )
Order
The only question involved in this appeal by special leave is whether the amount deposited by the tenant/respondent under Section 6A was valid tender? The learned Rent Controller held the deposit as not a valid tender while the appellate authority and the revisional court took a contrary view.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the tenant/respondent filed an application under Section 6A of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) before the learned Rent Controller, Ambala on 19.5.88 alleging that the landlord was not receiving rent and was also not issuing receipt for the same, and, therefore, the tenant had no other option available to him except to deposit the arrears of rent in that court. On obtaining orders from the learned Rent Controller the tenant deposited the rent from 12.2.87 to 11.5.88 amounting to Rs. 7500/- in respect of the demised premises in the court. Notice was directed to be issued to the respondent for withdrawal of the amount by the learned Rent Controller. While the matter rested thus, the landlord filed an application under Section 13 of the Act seeking ejectment of the tenant from the demised premises on the ground that the tenant had not paid the rent to the landlord from 12.2.87 to 11.8.88 at the rate of Rs. 500/- p.m. and a sum of Rs. 9000/- had become due and payable to the landlord along with cost and interest. The tenant resisted the application for ejectment and in the written statement asserted that he had already deposited the arrears of rent from 12.2.87 to 11.5.88 amounting to Rs. 7500/- under Section 6A of the Act under orders of the court dated 14/15.6.1988 and that the necessity to do so had arisen because the landlord had refused to receive the rent and give receipt for the same. It was maintained in the written statement that the landlord did not receive the rent in spite of best efforts made by the tenant and that attitude of the landlord compelled him to move the court of the Rent Controller under Section 6A of the Act seeking permission to deposit the rent in the court. No rejoinder was filed to this written statement. The landlord also did not challenge the order of the Rent Controller made under Section 6A at any stage. Thus, the assertion of the tenant both in the application under Section 6A and in the written statement to the effect that the landlord despite the best efforts made by the tenant had refused to receive the rent and give receipt for the same remained unrebuted. The learned Rent Controller inspite of this position allowed the application for ejectment on 25.7.94 and while deciding issue No. 2 which reads-
“Whether the respondent has deposited the rent from 12.2.1987 to 11.5.1988 under Section 6A of the Rent Act, if so, its effect?”, held :-
“Under this issue, the respondent is required to prove that the respondent deposited the rent from 12.2.87 to 11.5.88 under Section 6-A of the Rent Act. There is admission of the deposit of the rent but the tender cannot be called a valid tender, in view of the interest and the assessment (sic : of cost) being not paid and their being no evidence to this effect. In these, circumstances, issue No. 2 is proved against the respondent.”
3. The order of ejectment dated 25.7.94 was successfully challenged by the tenant before the appellate authority and a revision filed by the landlord against the appellate authority was dismissed by the High Court.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. Section 6A of the Act reads thus :-
“6-A. Deposit of rent.-(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, if a landlord refuses to receive, or grant a receipt for, any rent payable in respect of the building or rented land when tendered to him by a tenant, the tenant may apply to the Controller for leave to deposit, the rent in his office, and the Controller shall receive
