1. Suit for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction based on default in payment and material alteration under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings Act, 1972. (Para 6 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 196
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MANOJ MISRA, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.
Shanti Prasad (D) through LRs. – Appellant
Versus
Thakur Dass (D) through LRs. and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5981 of 2014
Decided On : 01-03-2023
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Court cannot deny protection to tenant only on the ground that plea taken by him with regard to rate of rent was found incorrect.
Court cannot deny protection to tenant only on the ground that plea taken by him with regard to rate of rent was found incorrect.
Subject
Property Law - Landlord and Tenant
Act Referred
Headnote
Rent and Eviction – Default in payment of rent and material alteration in tenanted accommodation – [Section 20(4) of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972] – On or before first date of appellant had deposited arrears of rent as demanded together with interest and costs of suit – Appellant/tenant was entitled to benefit of provision of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of U.P. Act and courts below were not justified in denying its benefit to appellant/tenant only on the ground that plea taken by him with regard to rate of rent was found incorrect – Impugned order of High Court to the extent it affirms decree of eviction set-aside – Order of trial court to the extent it directs for eviction of appellant set-aside – As no challenge to remaining part of decree has been made, remaining part of decree maintained. (Paras 11 and 12)
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. U.K. Uniyal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, AOR Mr. Dhananjay Garg, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Garg, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. U.K. Uniyal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, AOR Mr. Dhananjay Garg, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Garg, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Whether deposit of arrears, interest, and costs entitles a tenant to protection against eviction under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act despite disputes over rent rates. (Para 8 , 9 )
3. The court found the requisite amount was deposited timely and that a discrepancy in the pleaded rent rate does not render the deposit conditional. (Para 10 , 12 )
4. Discretionary relief under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act cannot be denied if the tenant deposits the landlord's claimed arrears, regardless of the tenant's own rent rate plea. (Para 11 , 12 )
5. Decree of eviction set aside; tenant granted protection under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act. (Para 13 , 14 )
6. Does a discrepancy between the rent rate pleaded by the tenant and the rate found by the court disentitle the tenant from protection under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act?
No. If the tenant deposits the arrears of rent as claimed by the landlord, along with interest and costs, within the prescribed time, discretionary relief cannot be denied simply because the tenant failed to prove their own claimed rent rate. (Para 11 , 12 )
7. What is the effect of depositing the demanded arrears of rent, interest, and costs before the first date of hearing under Section 20(4) of the U.P. Act?
Such a deposit entitles the tenant to seek discretionary relief and protection against eviction, provided the deposit is not conditional and is made within the statutory timeframe. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
ORDER :
1. Matter is called out.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant is present but none is present for the respondents.
3. There are 11 respondents in this appeal. As per office report, respondent nos. 1(i) to (vi), 3 and 5 are served but no one has entered appearance on their behalf. Respondent nos. 2 and 4 have refused to accept notice. Notice upon respondent no. 6 was served as per Certificate of Service received from the High Court. Respondent nos. 7 to 11 have refused to accept the notice and, therefore, notices have been affixed at their residence.
4. In view of the above, service of notice on the respondents is held sufficient.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record.
6. The appellant is a tenant. A suit for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction was instituted against the appellant after determining the tenancy inter-alia on the ground of default in payment of rent and making of material alteration in the tenanted accommodation. After exchange of pleadings, the trial court framed as many as eight issues. On Issue No. 4 i.e. whether the tenant/defendant has made material alterations in the accommodation in dispute, the trial court returned a finding in favour of the tenant. However, as rest of the issues were decided against the tenant (appellant herein), the trial court decreed the plaintiff’s suit for recovery of arrears of rent, mesne profit and ejectment.
7. Against the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 03.10.1981, Civil Revision No. 467 of 1981 was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad which came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 11.05.2010.
8. Assailing the decree of ejectment, the learned counsel for the appellant has raised a short point - whether in view of deposit of Rs. 8,910/- made by the defendant/appellant towards arrears of rent, interest and costs of the suit, vide application dated 21st October 1978 (Annexure P2), the appellant/tenant was entitled to protection against eviction in light of the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 [U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972] (for short “U.P. Act”)?
9. It is urged that there is no dispute that the requisite amount was deposited before the first date of hearing, as would be clear from the observations of the trial court in paragraph 12 of its judgment dated 03.10.1981. However, the benefit of sub-section (4) of Section 20 has been denied only on the ground that the appellant claimed the rate of rent as Rs. 45 per month whereas it was found to be Rs.150 per month. It is submitted that the trial court and the revisional court have wrongly taken the view that the above discrepancy would render the deposit conditional thereby disentitling the defendant to the discretionary relief under sub-section (4) of Section 20.
10. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. We find that the trial court framed Issue No. 6 as regards entitlement of the defendant/appellant to the benefit of sub-section (4) of Section 20. While returning a finding on Issue No. 6, though the trial court accepted that an amount of Rs. 8,910/- towards arrears of rent, interest and costs of the suit was deposited by the defendant/tenant before filing the written statement but held the said deposit not unconditional as in the written statement, the defendant pleaded the rate of rent as Rs. 45/- per month, which, ultimately, was found to be Rs. 150/- per month. What is important is that the trial court recorded no finding that the amount deposited was short of the requisite amount or that it was not by or before the first date of hearing in the suit.
11. In Vijay Laxmi Gangal vs. Mahendra Pratap Garg, (1985) 3 SCC 364 : AIR 1986 SC 753 a three-Judge Bench of this Court while conferring the benefit of the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the U.P. Act held as follows:
“The
