Back
1972 Supreme(All) 266
Allahbad High Court
R.B.MISRA
Bhikha Lal - Appellant
Versus
Munna Lal - Respondent
Decided On : 10/30/1972
B.R. Awasthi, L.P. Singh, J.N. Agarwala and Yogesh Agarwal, for Appellants; Gur Pratap Singh, for Respondent.
Headnote:
RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION ACT - SECTION 3 (1) (A) - DEPOSIT OF DECRETAL AMOUNT IN COURT - WHETHER CONSTITUTES PAYMENT TO LANDLORD - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 3 (1) (A) - TENANT'S OBLIGATION TO PAY ARREARS WITHIN ONE MONTH OF NOTICE - STRICT INTERPRETATION OF "FAILS TO PAY" - LANDLORD'S CONDUCT IN REFUSING PAYMENT - RELEVANCE.
Fact of the Case:
The tenant, Munna Lal, fell into arrears of rent and the landlord, Bhikha Lal, filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears. The tenant deposited the decretal amount in court pursuant to an interim order of the District Judge during the pendency of an appeal. The landlord sent a notice demanding payment of the arrears, and the tenant replied that he had already deposited the amount and was willing to give his consent for withdrawal. The landlord did not respond and filed a suit for eviction, treating the tenant as a defaulter under Section 3 (1) (a) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the tenant had not committed a default in payment of arrears within the meaning of Section 3 (1) (a) of the Act. The court found that the tenant had deposited the decretal amount in court pursuant to the interim order of the District Judge, and that he had informed the landlord of the deposit and expressed his willingness to give his consent for withdrawal. The court held that the landlord's refusal to accept payment and his subsequent filing of a suit for eviction amounted to a penalization of the tenant, which was not the intention of the Legislature.
Issues: 1. Whether the deposit of the decretal amount in court by the tenant constituted payment to the landlord within the meaning of Section 3 (1) (a) of the Act? 2. Whether the tenant's obligation to pay arrears within one month of the notice under Section 3 (1) (a) should be strictly interpreted? 3. Whether the landlord's conduct in refusing payment and filing a suit for eviction was relevant in determining whether the tenant had committed a default.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the deposit of the decretal amount in court by the tenant did not constitute payment to the landlord within the meaning of Section 3 (1) (a) of the Act. The court relied on the provisions of Order 21, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, which provides that payment of a decree shall be made into court, to the decree-holder, or otherwise as directed by the court. The court held that the deposit of the amount by way of security for the payment of the decretal amount was not a payment within the meaning of Order 21, Rule 1. 2. The court held that the tenant's obligation to pay arrears within one month of the notice under Section 3 (1) (a) should be strictly interpreted. The court relied on the principle that where two interpretations of a rule are possible, the court should accept the one which is consistent with equity, justice, and good conscience. The court held that the expression "fails to pay" in Section 3 (1) (a) should be interpreted as applying only to a tenant who by a voluntary and deliberate act or omission stays away from duty and fails to report, and not to one who was prevented by a cause beyond his control to resume duty. 3. The court held that the landlord's conduct in refusing payment and filing a suit for eviction was relevant in determining whether the tenant had committed a default. The court held that the landlord's refusal to accept payment and his subsequent filing of a suit for eviction amounted to a penalization of the tenant, which was not the intention of the Legislature.
Final Decision: The court answered the question referred to it in the negative, holding that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tenant could not be said to have committed a default in payment of arrears of the decretal amount amounting to Rs. 89.75 P. for purposes of Section 3 of the Act.
Seth, JJ., the following question has been referred to me for opinion by the Acting Chief Justice :-
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the defendant-respondent could be said to have committed a default in payment of arrears of the decretal amount amounting to Rs. 89.75 for purposes of Section 3 of the Rent Control and Eviction Act?"
2. The material facts to bring about the question referred to me are as follows :
3. Munna Lal, defendant-respondent, was a tenant of a portion of premises No. 105/336, Chamanganj, Kanpur, at a monthly rent of Rs. 5/-. This house is owned by Bhikha Lal and others, plaintiff-appellants. It appears that the tenant fell in arrears. The landlords, therefore, filed a suit, which was, later on, numbered as Suit No. 570 of 1961, for ejectment and for recovery of the arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation, amounting to Rs. 89.75 P. The suit was decreed by the Munsif. The tenant went up in appeal before the District Judge. He also applied for the stay of the execution of the decree pending the disposal of the appeal. The District Judge granted an interim order staying the delivery of possession provided the tenant deposited in the trial Court the entire decretal amount with costs and pendente lite and mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 5/- per mensem from 9th March, 1971, within a specified period and continued to deposit the same at the rate of Rs. 5/- every month. In case of default, the stay order was to stand vacated. Pursuant to the interim order, the tenant deposited a sum of Rs. 240/- ; not in the trial Court, but in the appellate Court. At long last the appeal was partly allowed and the decree for ejectment was set aside. The suit for recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 89.75 P., however, stood decreed.
4. It appears that the tenant again fell in arrears. The landlords, therefore, sent a fresh notice dated 17th July, 1963, through a Vakil demanding the past arrears of Rs. 89.75 (representing the decretal amount) and subsequent arrears for seven months from 25th November, 1962 to June, 1963 to the tune of Rs. 35/- (total arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 124.75 P.). The notice was duly served on the tenant. The tenant sent a reply dated 6th August, 1963, through a Vakil, informing the landlords that the amount of Rs. 80.75 P. had already been deposited towards the decretal amount in Court and he had sent the other amount of Rs. 35/- by Money Order. It was definitely stated in the reply that if there was any difficulty in getting the amount from the Court, he was prepared to give his consent for withdrawal. The landlords did not respond to this letter and filed a suit for the eviction of the tenant treating him to be a defaulter within the meaning of Section 3 (1) (a) of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The suit was contested by the tenant on the ground, inter alia, that he had already deposited the sum of Rupees 89.75 P. and sent the other amount of Rs. 35/- by Money Order well within thirty days of the receipt of the notice, but the landlords refused to accept the same and, therefore, he was not a defaulter within the meaning of Section 3 (1)(a) of the Act.
5. The 4th Additional Munsif, who tried the suit, decreed the same holding the tenant to be a defaulter within the meaning of Section 3 (1) (a) of the Act. He, however, found him to be a defaulter in respect of the second item of Rs. 35/- and not in respect of the first item of Rs. 89.75 P. On appeal by the tenant, the 1st Additional Civil Judge modified the decree of the trial Court. He set aside the decree for ejectment holding that the tenant was not a defaulter in respect of any of the two items. The suit, however, stood decreed for arrears of rent. The landlords came up in Second Appeal to this Court against the judgment and decree of the 1st Additional Civil Judge.
6. The appeal
