Back
2015 Supreme(Raj) 2102
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Vineet Kothari, J.
LRs of Jawari Mal S/o Basti Mal Patwa - Appellant
Versus
Om Prakash S/o Amrit Lal Gandhi - Respondent
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 183 of 1997.
Decided On : 17-12-2015
For the Respondent-Defendant-Tenant:Mr. M.K. Trivedi, Advocate.
The deposit of rent by the tenant in court without satisfying the conditions laid down in Section 19A(3)(c) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, cannot be regarded as a valid deposit.
Headnote:
RENT AND EVICTION - DEPOSIT OF RENT - VALIDITY - CONDITIONS - RAJASTHAN PREMISES (CONTROL OF RENT AND EVICTION) ACT, 1950 - SECTION 19A(3)(C).
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff-landlord filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent against the defendant-tenant for default in payment of rent. The trial court partly decreed the suit and directed eviction of the defendant-tenant. The first appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and set aside the eviction decree. The plaintiff-landlord filed a second appeal in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the deposit of rent made by the defendant-tenant in court without satisfying the conditions laid down in Section 19A(3)(c) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, could not be regarded as a valid deposit. The court also held that the deposit of rent made by the defendant-tenant in court under Section 19A of the Act, which was later dismissed in default without issuing any notice to the plaintiff, could not be considered as a deposit in terms of Section 19A(3)(c) of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the deposit of rent in court by the tenant-defendant without satisfying the conditions laid down in Section 19A(3)(c) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, can be regarded as a valid deposit? 2. Whether the deposit of rent made by the defendant in court in Misc. Case No. 167/91 under Section 19A of the Act, which was later dismissed in default without issuing any notice to the plaintiff, on account of non-production of receipt and non-appearance of the defendant or his consent, could have been considered as a deposit in terms of Section 19A(3)(c) of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following legal principles: 1. The deposit of rent by the tenant within 15 days is not an application within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 2. The provisions of Section 19A of the Act are meant to be resorted to if the landlord illegally refused to accept the rent from the tenant after following the procedure under Clause (a) and (b) both. 3. The tenant in order to maintain his tenancy right is allowed to deposit the rent in the Court instead of payment of the same to the landlord only after following the mandatory procedure under Clause (a) and (b) both.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the second appeal, answered the substantial questions of law in favor of the plaintiff-landlord and against the defendant-tenant, and restored the eviction decree granted by the trial court.
rudh la[;k 1& izdj.k esa ;g fookfnr ugha gS fd i{kdkjku ds e/; igys Hkh fMQkYV ds vk/kkj ij okn pyk gS rFkk ml okn esa izfroknh dks izFke fMQkYVh ?kksf"kr djrs gq, jsUV dUV~zksy ,DV dh /kkjk 13(6) dk ykHk iznku fd;k x;k FkkA ml nkos dh fMdzh dh udy dh izekf.kr izfrfyfi izn'kZ 1 gS rFkk QSlys dh izekf.kr izfrfyfi izn'kZ 2 gSA Lo;a Mh0M0&1&vkseizdk'k us ftjg esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd igys okys nkos esa mls izFke O;frdzeh ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k FkkA ns[kuk ;g gS fd izFke okn ds mijkUr D;k izfroknh us dHkh oknh dks fdjk;k /kkek ;k fu;ekuqlkj vnkyr esa jsUV dUV~zksy ,DV dh /kkjk 19&, dh rgr tek djok;k gSA
bl laca/k esa oknh us okn&i= dh dye la[;k 3 esa ;g tkfgj fd;k gS fd mls vxLr 1993 rd dk fdjk;k izkIr gks x;k gS] tks izfroknh us /kkjk 19&, ds rgr eqdnek uEcj 41@91 esa tek djok;k FkkA oknh us fnukad 1-9-1991 ds i'pkr~ ls fdjk;k cdk;k gksuk crk;k gSA ih0M0&1 oknh tojhey us viuh lk{; esa ;g dgk gS fd fnukad 1-9-1991 ds i'pkr dk fdjk;k izfroknh us ugha fn;kA Lo;a Mh0M0&1&vkseizdk'k us viuh lk{; esa dgk gS fd mlus fnukad 1-9-1991 ls ,d lky dk fdjk;k /kkjk 19&, ds rgr U;k;ky; esa tek djok fn;k gS tks fd izn'kZ ,&1 ds tek djok;k gSA oknh dh vksj ls bl laca/k esa izn'kZ 2-2 nLrkost izLrqr gq, gSA ftlls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd izfroknh us fnukad 1-9-1991 ls vxLr 1992 rd dk fdjk;k U;k;ky; esa tek djkus gsrq U;k;ky; ds lEeq[k jsUV dUV~zksy ,DV dh /kkjk 19&, ds rgr izkFkZuk blh U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;k Fkk tks nhokuh fofo/k eqdnek la[;k 167@91 ds :i esa ntZ gqvk FkkA ;g izdj.k fnukad 15-10-1991 dks ntZ djus dk vkns'k fn;s x;s Fks rFkk tfj;s jlhn izn'kZ ,&1 ds gh izfroknh us fnukad 15-10-1991 dks gh 12 eghus ds fdjk;s ds :i;s 360@& tfj;s VsUMj tek djok fn;s FksA ckn esa fnukad 3-7-1992 dks ;g eqdnek izkFkhZ o mlds vf/koDrk ds xSj gkftj gksus ds dkj.k [kkfjt dj fn;k x;k FkkA ;g Li"V gS fd izfroknh us fdjk;k vnk;xh ls lacaf/kr jlhnsa U;k;ky; esa ugha fn[kkbZ rFkk bl dkj.ko'k bl izdj.k dk uksfVl oknh dks ugha Hkstk x;kA fo}ku vf/koDrk izfroknh dk ;g rdZ jgk gS fd izfroknh dh fu;r fdjk;k vnk ugha djus dh ugha Fkh rFkk mlus U;k;ky; esa fdjk;k tek djok fn;k Fkk vkSj mlds i'pkr~ fnukad 3-7-1992 dks izdj.k la[;k 167@91 esa vne iSjoh esa [kkfjt ugha fd;k tk ldrk FkkA fo}ku vf/koDrk izfroknh dk ;g rdZ bl gn rd rks Lohdkj djus ;ksX; gS fd izfroknh us U;k;ky; esa iSlk tek djok fn;k FkkA blhfy, mldh fu;r fdjk;k vnk djus dh FkhA ijUrq izfroknh o mlds vf/koDrk fnukad 3-7-1992 dks U;k;ky; ds lEeq[k mifLFkr ugha vk;s vkSj fnukad 1-5-1992 dks vknsf'kdk dh ikyuk djrs gq, mUgksaus jkf'k tek djkus dh jlhn ugha fn[kkbZ rks U;k;ky; ds lEeq[k bl ckr ds vfrfjDr dksbZ vU; fodYi ugha Fkk fd og izdj.k dks vne iSjoh esa [kkfjt dj nsA vr% ;g ugh ekuk tk ldrk gS fd fnukad 3-7-1992 dh dk;Zokgh U;k;ky; us fof/k vuqlkj ugha dh gSA ;g Hkh Li"V gS fd mlds i'pkr dHkh Hkh izfroknh ;k mlds vf/koDrk us nhokuh fofo/k okn la[;k 167@91 dks jsLVksj djkus ds lacaf/kr dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dhA blds vfrfjDr Hkh Lo;a izfroknh us ftjg esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd izFke O;frdze dk Qk;nk ysus ds ckn
