1. Eviction suit for arrears of rent under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 — dispute over rent deposit in court. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 303
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Aniruddha Bose, Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.
Man Singh – Appellant
Versus
Shamim Ahmad (Dead) Thr. Lrs. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1874 of 2015
Decided On : 05-04-2023
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Tenant can only deposit rent in Court as long as landlord has refused to accept rent – Once landlord expresses his willingness to accept rent, tenant has no option but to deposit rent to landlord.
Tenant can only deposit rent in Court as long as landlord has refused to accept rent – Once landlord expresses his willingness to accept rent, tenant has no option but to deposit rent to landlord.
Subject
RENT AND EVICTION - DEPOSIT OF RENT IN COURT
Act Referred
Headnote
Rent and Eviction – Termination of tenancy – Eviction of tenant – Section 30 gives an opportunity to the defendant to deposit the admitted rent in Court, but this arrangement lasts only till landlord expresses his willingness to receive rent directly – Tenant can only deposit rent in Court as long as landlord has refused to accept rent – Once landlord expresses his willingness to accept rent, tenant has no option but to deposit rent to landlord – This has not been done by appellant – Appeal dismissed. [Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – Section 20(2) and 30] (Paras 9, 10, 11 and 15)
Facts of the case:
This is a tenant’s appeal, arising out of rent and eviction proceedings from a Small Causes Court. Landlord’s suit for eviction was allowed and tenant’s J.S.C.C. Revision and Writ Petition respectively have been dismissed. Leave was granted by this Court on 11.2.2015 and impugned order was stayed, subject to certain conditions.
Findings of Court:
We therefore find no merit in the appeal which is hereby dismissed. All interim Orders shall stand vacated.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
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. Mr. Ishaan Tiwari, Adv. Mr. R.p. Bansal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Dr. (mrs. ) Vipin Gupta, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. U.K. Uniyal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, AOR Mr. Dhananjay Garg, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Garg, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Tiwari, Adv. Mr. R.p. Bansal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Dr. (mrs. ) Vipin Gupta, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Landlord seeks eviction for rent arrears; tenant contends no default as admitted rent was deposited in court following landlord's refusal to accept payment. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 7 )
3. The court found no evidence for rent enhancement and held that a notice of demand signifies the landlord's willingness to accept rent, terminating court deposits. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
4. Under Section 30(1) of the Act, the right to deposit rent in court ceases once the landlord signifies willingness to accept rent via written notice. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
5. Appeal dismissed and interim orders vacated. (Para 15 )
6. Under what conditions can a tenant deposit rent in court under Section 30(1) of the Act?
A tenant may deposit rent in court if the landlord refuses to accept the tendered rent. This arrangement continues only until the landlord signifies in writing their willingness to accept the rent. (Para 6 , 10 , 11 )
7. What is the legal effect of a landlord's notice of demand on the tenant's right to deposit rent in court?
Once a landlord serves a written notice expressing willingness to accept rent, the tenant is obligated to tender the admitted rent to the landlord and no longer has the right to deposit it in court. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
8. How does the court distinguish between Section 30 deposits and the relief provided under Section 20(4) of the Act?
Section 30 governs the right to deposit rent during a landlord's refusal, whereas Section 20(4) provides a mechanism for a tenant to avoid eviction by depositing admitted arrears before the first hearing of a suit. (Para 6 , 13 , 14 )
JUDGMENT
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
1. This is a tenant’s appeal, arising out of rent and eviction proceedings from a Small Causes Court. The landlord’s suit for eviction was allowed and the tenant’s J.S.C.C. Revision and Writ Petition respectively have been dismissed. Leave was granted by this Court on 11.2.2015 and the impugned order was stayed, subject to certain conditions.
2. The premises in question is a shop situated in Kotla, Gangoh-Town, Nukur-Tehsil, District-Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to ‘premises’) which was given on rent to the present appellant on 06.01.1982 on a monthly rent of Rs. 165/- per month. Later, the rent was increased to Rs. 195/- p.m. and then from 01.01.1990 onwards to Rs. 250/- p.m. This is the admitted position. We must, however, record here that the landlord’s claim of the rent being further increased up to Rs.300/- per month was denied by the tenant though the Trial Court and the Revisional Court have given their findings on the enhanced rent, in favour of the landlord.
3. The appellant’s case is that he was a tenant in the shop, on a monthly rent of Rs.250/- per month. In June, 1993, the landlord refused to accept the rent which was then paid by the tenant through money order which was returned with an endorsement of refusal. Under these circumstances when the rent was being refused by the landlord, the tenant started depositing the rent in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) (hereafter referred to as ‘Court’). An amount of Rs.750/- which at the rate of Rs.250/- per month was the rent for May, June and July which was thus deposited, and continued to be deposited in the Court, by the tenant.
4. A notice was given by the landlord on 05.04.1995, admittedly received by the tenant/appellant on 10.04.1995, where the landlord demanded rent from May, 1993 onwards. The notice did not result in the deposit of the rent before the landlord and consequently the landlord filed a J.S.C.C. Suit No.179 of 1995, in the Court of Judge, Small Causes, Saharanpur for arrears of rent and eviction, on the grounds of arrears of rent from 01.05.1993 onwards. In the plaint it was alleged by the landlord that though earlier the monthly rent of the shop was Rs.250/- per month but later through an oral settlement in the year 1993, it was agreed between the parties that there shall be an increase of Rs.25/- per month every year and therefore it became Rs.275/- per month from 01.05.1993 onwards and Rs.300/- per month from 01.05.1994 onwards etc., and thus, the tenant-appellant was in default of rent. Since this rent has not been paid the tenancy stands terminated on notice already served and hence the landlord sought an order of eviction.
5. In his reply the appellant denied that there was any oral agreement between the parties for yearly enhancement of rent by Rs.25/- per month. The actual and admitted rent is Rs.250/- per month, which is being duly paid in court since May, 1993, and continuously being deposited thereafter and the tenant has never been at any point of time a defaulter for the payment of rent. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer to the provision of law which is applicable in the present case. The statute which governs the field is ‘The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act No. 13 of 1972”).
6. Under Section 20 Sub-section (2) a suit for eviction of a tenant from a building can be instituted, inter alia, on the grounds given in sub-section 2 (a) of Section 20 reads as follows:
“(2) A suit for the eviction of a tenant from a building after the determination of his tenancy may be instituted on one or more of the following grounds, namely:
(a) that the tenant is in arrears of rent for not less than four months, and has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month from the date of service upon him of a notice of demand:”
The ground of non-payment of rent by the tenant therefore has to be for not less t
