The absence of an unmistakable denial of the landlord's title in a deposit renders it conditional under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act, leading to potential dismissal of the appeal.

Headnote:
Unconditional Deposit - U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - The appellant's deposit was deemed conditional due to the absence of an unmistakable denial of the landlord's title, leading to the dismissal of the civil appeal.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant's deposit was considered conditional under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, as it did not contain an unmistakable denial of the landlord's title. The court dismissed the civil appeal and left the question of grant of time to the executing court.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellant's deposit was not unconditional under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act, leading to the dismissal of the civil appeal. The question of grant of time was left to the executing court.
Issues: The issue revolved around whether the appellant's deposit qualified as an unconditional deposit under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The absence of an unmistakable denial of the landlord's title in the appellant's deposit rendered it conditional, leading to the dismissal of the civil appeal.
Final Decision: The civil appeal was dismissed, and the question of grant of time was left to the executing court.

ORDER

1. In this case having regard to the stand taken by the appellant in his written statement, we think it is not an unconditional deposit under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act XIII of 1972). In fact, after narrating that the landlord did not have title in paragraph 15 it is averred:

"That though the respondent, in the above circumstances, does not admit to being the tenant of the plaintiff, still, without prejudice to his rights regarding the rate of rent, has deposited on September 21, 1978, the entire alleged rent from August 1, 1975 to July 31, 1978 at the rate of Rs 10 per month along with cost of the suit and interest thereon, in total Rs 553.25 by tender dated September 21, 1978 in the court of Judge, Small Cause Court, Allahabad in Sheo Murti Gupta v. Ghooreylal{Suit No. 335 of 1978}. Therefore, the respondent is entitled to the protection given by Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against eviction."

2. The fact that even here no unmistakable term denies the title of the landlord would amount to a conditional deposit. The court below is correct. The civil appeal stands dismissed. The question of grant of time is left to the executing court. No costs.

For Citation : (1994) 5 SCC 339

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

1994 Supreme(SC) 42

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA(BEFORE S. MOHAN AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.)GHOOREY LAL Versus SHEO MURTI GUPTA AND ANOTHERCivil Appeal No. 2808 of 1986, decided on January 11, 1994

The absence of an unmistakable denial of the landlord's title in a deposit renders it conditional under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act, leading to potential dismissal of the appeal.

Judicial Analysis

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(BEFORE S. MOHAN AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.)
GHOOREY LAL
Versus
SHEO MURTI GUPTA AND ANOTHER
Civil Appeal No. 2808 of 1986, decided on January 11, 1994