IMPORTANT POINT
High Court rightly held that appellants did not deposit rent in time nor paid interest on delayed deposit, so appellants could not claim benefit of Section 39 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 against eviction decree.

Headnote:(i) U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972-Section 3(a)(1)-Tenant in the case of residential building-After his death mean his heirs as normally reside with him-Tenant dying leaving behind wife, son and daughter-Whether would become tenants u/s 3(a)? (Yes)-Case law discussed.
       Held : In Jagdish Chander s case the ratio laid down in Anand Nivas s case was approved. In Damadilal s case (supra) both these decisions have been considered and the principles laid down therein have been disapproved. Damadilal s case lays down that the provisions of the concerned statute have to be looked at in order to ascertain what the rights are available under the statute. The definition of a "tenant" as contained in Section 3(a) of the said Act includes the heirs and legal representatives residing with the tenant at the time of his death. Admittedly, the Appellants were residing with A.K. Gaur at the time of his death. On the coming into force of the new Act, even though the tenancy had been terminated, rent was payable on behalf of Shri A.K. Gaur and therefore he would have been a tenant. On his death the Appellants who were residing with him at the time of his death would be tenants. (Para 14)
       (ii) U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972-Sections 3(a) and 39-Pending suit for eviction relating to buildings brought under 1972 Act for first time-Old Act (of 1947) did not apply to the concerned premises-Suit for eviction, for recovery of rent and for damages and mesne profits pending-Agreed rent 100/- p.m.-Tenant disputing it as 80/- p.m. as certain facilities had been withdrawn-Deposited @ 80/- p.m. three times for lump sum-No interest paid-After death, his heirs (appellants) claimed protection of Section 39-Not given-Appeal against-Whether High Court was right in concluding that even if Section 39 applied the appellants had not complied it? (Yes)-Result-Appeal dismissed-Time granted to vacate.
       Held : Mr. Upadhaya then submitted that the High Court was right in concluding that even if Section 39 applied the Appellants had not deposited the entire amount of the rent and interest. He pointed out that the trial Court had fixed the rent at Rs. 100/- per month. He submitted that the Appellants took a risk in depositing rent by calculating it at the rate of only Rs. 80/- per month. He submitted that once the trial Court fixed the rent at Rs. 100/- per month there was shortfall in deposit and thus the Appellants could not be said to have deposited the entire amount of rent. He submitted that even otherwise the interest had been paid only on the difference of Rs. 20/-, even though the deposits at rate of Rs. 80/- per month were not on time. He submitted that therefore the High Court was right in confirming the decree of eviction passed by the trial Court. We find that the deposits of rent at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month were not on time. The first deposit was on 29th April, 1967 (for the period from 1st October, 1966 to 31st March, 1967). Thus from October 1966 to March 1967 there had been no deposits. Interest would have been payable on this delayed payment. Admittedly this interest amount had not been deposited. The second deposit was only on 6th October, 1967 (for the period from 1st April, 1967 to 30th September, 1967). Even here no interest had been deposited for the delayed payments. The third deposit is on 25th April, 1968 (for the period from 1st October, 1967 to 31st March, 1968). Here again interest had not been deposited for the delayed payments. More importantly, the Appellants chose to deposit at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month when the actual rent was Rs. 100/- per month. By choosing to deposit at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month they took a risk that if the Court did not accept their contentions there would be no full deposit. The trial Court in its decree dated 12th August, 1980 held that the rent was Rs. 100/- per month. This portion of the decree has not been challenged. Once it was held that the rent was Rs. 100/- there was no deposit of the full rent within one month of the coming into force the said Act as envisaged by Section 39. Thus on this ground the High Court was right in confirming the decree for eviction. We therefore see no reason to interfere. The Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Gupta applies for time to enable his clients to vacate. We grant time of 4 months from today for the Appellants to vacate the premises on their filing in this Court within 3 weeks from today the usual undertaking. (Paras 15, 16, 17 & 18)

JUDGMENT

S. N. Variava, J.-This Appeal is against a Judgment dated 30th July, 1998.

2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:

The Appellants are the wife, son and daughter of one A.K. Gaur. The said A.K. Gaur was the tenant of the Respondents 1 and 2 (hereinafter called landlords). The premises had been given on rent to the said A. K. Gaur at a monthly rent of Rs. 100/-. On 29th September, 1966 the landlords sent a notice terminating the tenancy of A. K. Gaur with effect from the 31st day of the receipt of the notice. The tenancy was terminated on the ground that the rent had not been regularly paid. By his letter in reply dated 6th October, 1966 A. K. Gaur claimed that the rent up to September, 1966 had already been paid. The said A.K. Gaur claimed that the rent was only Rs. 80/- per month as certain facilities had been withdrawn.

3. The landlords then filed Suit No. 2385 of 1966 for eviction, for recovery of rent and for damages and mesne profits. A. K. Gaur filed an application seeking permission to deposit the rent in the Court. This permission was granted by the Court. On 29th April, 1967 A. K. Gaur deposited the rent due and payable for the period from 1st October, 1966 to 31st March, 1967. On 6th October, 1967 he deposited rent for the period from 1st April, 1967 to 30th September, 1967. On 25th April, 1968 he deposited rent for the period from 1st October, 1967 to 31st March, 1968. All these deposits were at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month. The landlords then applied that they be allowed to withdraw the amounts lying deposited in Court. A. K. Gaur opposed this application on the ground that the landlords could only withdraw provided they accepted that Rs. 80/- per month was the rent of the premises. The landlords therefore did not pursue their application and no order was passed thereon.

4. On 15th January, 1970 A. K. Gaur died. The Appellants were brought on record as his heirs. On 15th July, 1972 the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) was enacted. Sections 3(a) and 39 of the said Act read as follows:

"3. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise require,-

(a) "tenant", in relation to a building, means a person by whom its rent is payable, and on the tenant s death-

(1) in the case of a residential building, such only of his heirs as normally resided with him in the building at the time of his death;

(2) in the case of a non-residential building, his heirs ;

xxx xxx xxx

39. Pending suits for eviction relating to buildings brought under regulation for the first time.-In any suit for eviction of a tenant from any building to which the old Act did not apply, pending on the date of commencement of this Act, where the tenant within one month from such date of commencement or from the date of his knowledge of the pendency of the suit, whichever be later, deposits in the court before which the suit is pending, the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation (such damages for use and occupation being calculated at the same rate as rent) together with interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent per annum and the landlord s full cost of the suit, no decree for eviction shall be passed except on any of the grounds mentioned in the proviso to sub-section (1) or in clauses (b) to (g) of sub-section (2) of Section 20, and the parties shall be entitled to make necessary amendment in their pleadings and to adduce additional evidence where necessary.

Provided that a tenant the rent payable by whom does not exceed twenty-five rupees per month need not deposit any interest as aforesaid."

5. It is an admitted position that the old Act did not apply to the concerned premises. The Appellants made an application under Section 39 of the said Act claiming that they had deposited all the rents

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2002 Supreme(SC) 1085

IMPORTANT POINTHigh Court rightly held that appellants did not deposit rent in time nor paid interest on delayed deposit, so appellants could not claim benefit of Section 39 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 against eviction decree.

Cases Referred (2)

Judicial Analysis

IMPORTANT POINT
High Court rightly held that appellants did not deposit rent in time nor paid interest on delayed deposit, so appellants could not claim benefit of Section 39 of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 against eviction decree.