Back
2007 Supreme(All) 249
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Rakesh Tiwari , Rakesh Tiwari
NARESH CHANDRA GUPTA
Versus
RAJENDRA MOHAN
Decided On : 01 February 2007
C. M. W. P. No. 5074 of 2007
Komal Mehrotra, P.K.Jain,
The central legal point established in the judgment is the strict adherence to the provisions of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, particularly regarding the requirements for the tenant to prove refusal of rent by the landlord and to deposit the entire rent within the specified time to avail the statutory benefit.
Headnote:
Default - Ejectment - U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 - Section 20 (4), Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C. - 36ga, 37ga - The court discussed the provisions of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, particularly Section 20 (4) and Order XV, Rule 5, C. P. C., and emphasized the requirement for the tenant to deposit the entire amount of rent including taxes within one month from the date of service of notice to avail the benefit of Section 20 (4). The court also highlighted the need for the tenant to prove that the rent sent by money order was refused by the landlord to claim the benefit of deposit under Section 30 (1) of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a landlord, filed a suit against the petitioner, a tenant, for default in rent payment and inconsistent use of the premises. The petitioner contested the allegations, claiming that the rent was refused by the landlord and he had deposited the rent in compliance with the law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to prove that the rent sent by money order was refused by the landlord, and the deposit made by the petitioner was not in accordance with the law. The court also held that the petitioner did not deposit the entire rent within the specified time, thus not entitled to the benefit of Section 20 (4) of U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972.
Issues: The issues revolved around default in rent payment, inconsistent use of the premises, and the legality of the deposit made by the tenant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the tenant's failure to prove refusal of rent by the landlord, non-compliance with the deposit requirements under the Act, and the need to deposit the entire rent within the specified time to avail the statutory benefit.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the findings of the lower courts and ruling in favor of the respondent-landlord.
Heard Sri Komal Mehrotra for the petitioner and Sri P. K. Jain for the respondent.
2. This petition arises out of the judgment and order dated 24. 11. 2006, passed by the Additional District Judge XVI, Kanpur Nagar, Kanpur in S. C. C. Revision No. 1991 of 2005 and the judgment and order dated 29. 7. 2005, passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court, Kanpur Nagar, Kanpur in S. C. C. Case No. 35 of 2004.
3. By the judgment and order dated 29. 7. 2005 the Judge, Small Cause Court, Kanpur Nagar, Kanpur has decreed the suit against the defendant-petitioner-tenant to handover vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the plaintiff-respondent-landlord within 30 days holding the plaintiff to be entitled to receive Rs. 3,271 as arrears of rent and Rs. 588. 77 as taxes apart from Rs. 100 as costs.
4. By order dated 24. 11. 2006 the revisional court has partly allowed the revision filed by the petitioner by rejecting the revision in respect of his ejectment and modifying the judgment and decree of the trial court in respect of arrears of rent but maintaining the finding of default on the ground of arrears of rent.
5. The respondent is the owner and landlord of the premises in dispute by virtue of registered sale deed executed by the erstwhile owner Sri Santosh Kumar in his favour on 4. 1. 2001. He filed S. C. C. Suit No. 35 of 2004 alleging that the defendant-petitioner was a tenant in the ground floor of House No. 128/38-F, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur on a monthly rent of Rs. 100 besides taxes that he committed default in payment of rent and was in arrears of rent since 4. 5. 2001 to 3. 12. 2003 besides arrears of water tax and sever tax amounting to Rs. 558 and that he had put the premises under his tenancy to inconsistent user in as much he was given the shops in dispute for doing business of general merchant but it was being used for grinding spices and Dais by installing grinding machinery in the shop.
6. The suit was contested by the petitioner by filing written statement denying the allegations of default as well as of inconsistent user, inter alia, that he was a tenant since 1974 and had installed the grinding machines with permission of the erstwhile landlord. It was also challenged by him that he had taken the premises in dispute from the erstwhile landlord on a monthly rent of Rs. 100. 30 including taxes @ Rs. 15. 30p. per month which he has paid upto April, 2001.
7. The claim of the petitioner in his written statement before the Judge Small Cause Court was that on 1. 5. 2001 the erstwhile owner and landlord of the premises executed a sale deed in respect of the premises in dispute in favour of the respondent-Sri Rajendra Mohan Mishra without any information to the tenant and as such when the petitioner-tenant sent the rent to the erstwhile landlord through money order the same was refused by him without assigning any reason and it was only through the information given by other tenants in the premises that the petitioner came to know about transfer of the premises in dispute in favour of the plaintiff-respondent in pursuance of execution of sale deed by the erstwhile owner of the premises. Immediately after the factum of sale of the premises came to the knowledge of the petitioner-tenant he sent money order to the respondent-landlord at his address of Lakhimpur Kheri which was returned with the endorsement that he was residing at 83/5, New Labour Colony, Babupurwa, Kanpur Nagar. The petitioner thereafter sent the money order at the address of the landlord at Babupurwa, Kanpur Nagar which was also refused by the landlord and under these circumstances he was compelled to deposit the rent of the premises from 1. 5. 2001 to 31. 8. 2001 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kanpur in Misc. Case No. 2122/70 of 2001, Naresh Chandra Gupta v. Santosh Kumar and others, and has been continuously depositing the rent in the aforesaid Misc. Case No. 2122/70 of 2001 since 1. 5. 2001.
8. It was also stated by the peti
