VERY IMPORTANT POINT
Tenant s right to deposit the rent due in the Court under Clause (c) of Section 19A(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 arises if such deposit is preceded by the tenant having adopted one of the two methods contemplated by clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 19A.

Headnote:(i) Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950-19A(3)(a)(b) and (c)-Payment, remittance and deposit of Rent by Tenant-Tenant s right to deposit rent in Court under clause (c)-Preconditions-Tender of rent by postal money order-If refused-To disclose bank particulars of landlord for deposit-Whether both conditions are cumulative or alternative-High Court holding than cumulative-Whether correct.
       Held : We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that the tenant s right to deposit the rent due in the Court under clause (c) arises if such deposit is preceded by the tenant having adopted one of the two methods contemplated by clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (3) of Section 19A. (Para 8)
       (ii) Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950-Sections 13(1)(a) and 19A-Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955-Section 30-Evidence Act, 1872-Section 114(f)-Tenant depositing rent in Court without first tendering to landlord on ground that he enquired from landlord about his bank particulars but landlord did not respond -No evidence adduced by tenant of service of notice-1st Appellate Court and High Court passed order of eviction as deposit under Section 19A was invalid-Whether correct? (Yes).
       Held : On the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not think that a presumption under Section 114(f) of Evidence Act would be safe to draw in favour of the tenant and to hold that the requisite notice was sent by the tenant to the landlord. (Para 11)
       Held finally : For the foregoing reasons we are of the opinion that the tenant has defaulted in payment of rent and therefore a ground for his eviction under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act was made out. The appeal is dismissed with costs. The decree of eviction, as passed by the first appellate court and maintained by the High Court, is sustained though for reasons at variance therewith. However, the tenant is allowed time till 31.3.2002 for vacating the premises subject to filing an usual undertaking on affidavit before the executing court within a period of one month from today to clear all the arrears of rent within one month, continuing to pay the rent falling due month by month by the 15th day of that month and handing over vacant and peaceful possession to the landlord on or before 31st March, 2002. (Para 12)

JUDGMENT

R.C. Lahoti, J.-A suit for ejectment of the tenant from a shop on the ground available under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter the "Act", for short), filed by the respondent, was dismissed by the trial Court. In an appeal preferred by the respondent, the first appellate court reversed the decision of trial Court and decreed the suit. The High Court has dismissed the second appeal preferred by the tenant and upheld the decree of eviction passed by the appellate court. The legal representatives of the tenant, who has died during litigation, have filed this appeal by Special Leave. For the sake of convenience we will refer to the appellants as `tenant and the respondent as `landlord .

2. The relevant facts, to the extent not in controversy, may briefly be stated. The landlord owns a house in which there are four shops on the ground floor, one of which is in occupation of the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 55/-. Earlier a suit seeking eviction of tenant for his failure to pay or tender the amount of rent due from him was filed but the same was dismissed on account of the tenant having earned protection from eviction by making payment/deposit under sub-section (4) and (6) of Section 13. Once again the tenant fell into arrears of rent for the period from 1.3.1985 to 30.6.1986. The present suit was filed on the ground of second default. On 4.5.1985, the tenant had deposited in Court 6 months rent vide challan No. 36 in Civil Misc. Case No. 27/85 and subsequently, on 30.10.1985, another 12 months rent vide tender No. 2230 in Civil Misc. Case No. 89/85. Both these deposits were made under Section 19A of the Act. The Trial Court held the deposits to be valid deposits under Section 19A while the First Appellate Court and the High Court have held the deposits not to be valid and hence the tenant to be a defaulter. The controversy centers around the interpretation of Section 19A. Sections 13 and 19A, which are relevant, are extracted and reproduced hereunder :

"Section 13-Eviction of tenants.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law or contract, no court shall pass any decree, or make any order, in favour of a landlord, whether in execution of a decree or otherwise, evicting the tenant so long as he is ready and willing to pay rent therefore to the full extent allowable by this Act, unless it is satisfied-

(a) that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due from him for six months; or

(3) In a suit for eviction on the ground set forth in clause (a) of sub-section (1) with or without any of the other grounds referred to in that sub-section, the court shall, on the first date of hearing or on any other date as the court may fix in this behalf which shall not be more than three months after filing of the written statement and shall be before the framing of the issues, after hearing the parties and on the basis of material on record provisionally determine the amount of rent to be deposited in court or paid to the landlord by the tenant. Such amount shall be calculated at the rate of rent at which it was last paid or was payable for the period for which the tenant may have made default including the period subsequent thereto upto the end of the month previous to that in which such determination is made together with interest on such amount calculated at the rate of six percent per annum from the date when any such amount was payable upto the date of determination.

Provided that while determining the amount under this sub-section, the court shall not take into account the amount of rent which was barred by limitation on the date of the filing of the suit.

(4) The tenant shall deposit in court or pay to the landlord the amount determined by the court under sub-section (3) within fifteen days from the date of such determination, or within such further time, not exceeding three months, as may be extended by th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 1659

Cases Referred (1)