1. Eviction proceeding for arrears of rent under U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 — dispute regarding validity of rent deposits. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1994 Supreme(SC) 442
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE S. MOHAN AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.
JAGAT PRASAD
Versus
DISTT. JUDGE, KANPUR AND OTHERS
Civil Appeal No. 2278 of 1981
Decided on 13-4-1994
Important Points
Depositing rent in civil proceedings does not constitute a valid defense against eviction for arrears of rent under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Only compliance with the specific statutory procedure for deposits prescribed by the Act serves as a valid defense.
Subject
Eviction - Rent Arrears
Act Referred
Headnote
Civil Appeal dismissed
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether striking off the defense under Order XV, Rule 5, CPC was sustainable and whether rent deposited in civil proceedings constitutes valid payment in rent control proceedings. (Para 1 )
3. Striking off the defense under Order XV, Rule 5, CPC was unsustainable, but rent deposited in civil proceedings does not satisfy statutory requirements for rent control proceedings. (Para 1 )
4. Valid defense against eviction for arrears of rent requires strict compliance with the deposit procedure prescribed under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. (Para 1 )
5. Order of eviction sustained, civil appeal dismissed, and tenant granted time to vacate subject to filing an undertaking. (Para 1 , 2 )
6. Does depositing rent in a civil proceeding serve as a valid defense against eviction for arrears of rent in rent control proceedings?
No. To be a valid defense against eviction for arrears of rent, the tenant must comply with the specific procedure for depositing rent as prescribed under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. (Para 1 )
7. Can a defense be struck off under Order XV, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code in rent control matters?
While the court in this specific case found that the order striking off the defense under Order XV, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code could not be sustained, such orders are subject to judicial review. (Para 1 )
ORDER
1. After hearing Mr Bobde, learned counsel for the appellant for considerable time are fully convinced that the order passed by the learned District Judge and affirmed by the High Court insofar as it struck off the defence under Order XV, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code cannot be sustained. Nevertheless, the defence of the appellant that he had deposited bona fide the rent in the civil proceeding that would ensure to the benefit of the rent control proceedings is unacceptable to us. Law prescribes the procedure as to the deposit under U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. Such a procedure if complied with alone will be a valid defence to a petition for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent. Therefore, even accepting the defence the ultimate order of eviction passed against the tenant will have to be upheld. This means the order of eviction is sustained. Civil appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
2. As regards time to vacate the premises, the tenant is granted time till 31-12-1994 by which time he will deliver vacant possession. However, this shall be subject to the filing of the usual undertaking within four weeks from today.
For Citation: 1995 Supp (1) SCC 318
Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
