Back
High Court Of Allahabad
Bhagwan Din, J.
Panna Lal
Vs.
Xiii Addl Distt Judge Meerut
Decided on: Feb 26, 1999
U. P. URBAN BUILDINGS (REGULATION OF LETTING, RENT AND EVICTION) ACT, 1972 - SECTION 30(1), 20(4), 21(3), 21(5) - RENT DEPOSIT - VALIDITY - PROCEDURE - EFFECT OF NON-COMPLIANCE - EVICTION - RELIEF.
Fact of the Case:
Tenant deposited rent in court under Section 30(1) of the Act due to landlord's refusal to accept it. Landlord later died and was succeeded by his son, who served a notice to the tenant demanding arrears of rent and terminating the tenancy. Tenant replied to the notice, providing details of the deposits made in court and asserting that he was not in default. Landlord filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction. Trial court and revisional court held that the deposits were invalid due to non-compliance with Rule 21(5) and that the tenant was liable to be evicted.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the deposits made by the tenant were not valid as he had failed to comply with the provisions of Rule 21(5) of the Act, which required him to serve a notice in Form 'f' to the landlord about the continuation of the deposit of rent. The court further held that the tenant's reply to the notice, providing details of the deposits made in court, was not sufficient to absolve him of the liability of eviction, as the deposits were made in the name of the deceased landlord and the new landlord could not withdraw them. The court also held that the tenant was not entitled to the protection of Section 20(4) of the Act, which allows a tenant to avoid eviction by paying the entire amount of rent and damages due on the first date of hearing, as he had not deposited the entire amount of arrears of rent, including the rent for the period from the death of the previous landlord to the date of the notice.
Issues: 1. Whether the deposits made by the tenant under Section 30(1) of the Act were valid, considering that he had not complied with the provisions of Rule 21(5) of the Act? 2. Whether the tenant's reply to the notice, providing details of the deposits made in court, was sufficient to absolve him of the liability of eviction? 3. Whether the tenant was entitled to the protection of Section 20(4) of the Act, which allows a tenant to avoid eviction by paying the entire amount of rent and damages due on the first date of hearing?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the deposits made by the tenant were not valid as he had failed to comply with the provisions of Rule 21(5) of the Act, which required him to serve a notice in Form 'f' to the landlord about the continuation of the deposit of rent. The court relied on the decision in Choiey Lal v. XIVth Additional District Judge, Kanpur and others, 1994 (23) ALR 288, which held that strict compliance with the provisions of Rule 21 is necessary for treating a deposit under Section 30 as a valid deposit. 2. The court held that the tenant's reply to the notice, providing details of the deposits made in court, was not sufficient to absolve him of the liability of eviction, as the deposits were made in the name of the deceased landlord and the new landlord could not withdraw them. The court relied on the decision in Gyanchandra Prakash Sangal v. 1st Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar and others, 1986 (2) ARC 297, which held that where the tenant had deposited the rent in the name of a deceased landlord, the deposit would not be deemed to be a valid deposit. 3. The court held that the tenant was not entitled to the protection of Section 20(4) of the Act, which allows a tenant to avoid eviction by paying the entire amount of rent and damages due on the first date of hearing, as he had not deposited the entire amount of arrears of rent, including the rent for the period from the death of the previous landlord to the date of the notice. The court relied on the decisions in Khadi Gramodyog Mandal v. Ram Chandra Ji, 1977 ARC 326, and Subhash Chand Jain v. 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur and others, 1989 (15) ALR 300 (SC), which held that a tenant is required to deposit the entire amount of rent due, including the rent for the period relinquished by the landlord.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
Bhagwan Din, J.
This is a tenant's petition for quashing the order dated 14-10-1998 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Meerut decreeing the suit of the landlord for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment and for damages for use and occupation of the premises for the period from 21-10-1995 to 30-11-1995, and the order dated 27-1-1999 passed by XIIIth Additional District Judge, Meerut in S. C. C. Revision No. 543 of 1998.
2. THE petitioner is a tenant of the House No. 41-42/165, Dharmpuri, Sadar, Meerut at the monthly rent of Ps. 25 of which the Respondent No. 3, is the landlord. Earlier to the Respondent No. 3, his father, Gyan Chandra Garg was the landlord of the premises in dispute. In the year 1985, Gyan Chandra Garg refused to accept the rent from the petitioner. He, therefore, moved an application under Section 30 (1) of the U. P. U/ban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act No. 13 of 1972) in the Court of Munsiff, Meerut for permission to deposit the rent in the Court. THE landlord in response to the notice served on him, appeared in the Court and expressed his willingness to accept the rent. On this the Munsiff City passed an order on 9-10-1987 directing the petitioner to pay rent directly to the landlord. After some time, Gyan Chandra Garg again refused to accept the rent from the petitioner. Therefore, the latter filed a fresh application under Section 30 (1) of the Act No. 13 of 1972. THE Munsiff City by his order dated 5-8-1988 allowed the application and permitted the tenant to deposit the rent in the Court. There from the tenant has been depositing the rent regularly in the Court. THE previous landlord Gyan Chandra Garg died on 24-2-1990 leaving behind several heirs and legal representatives including the Respondent No. 3. But by virtue of the Will executed by Gyan Chandra Garg in his life time, the Respondent No. 3 became sole landlord of the premises in dispute. On 20-9-1995 he served a composite notice informing the petitioner that Gyan Chandra Garg, who had died on 24-2-1990, had bequeathed the premises in question exclusively in his favour and, therefore, he is alone the landlord. By means of this notice he also terminated the tenancy of the petitioner on the ground of default in payment of rent from October, 1985 till the date of notice, demanded the arrears of rent and vacant possession of the premises within 30 days. THE petitioner sent reply to the notice communicating the Respondent No. 3 that he could know for first time on receipt of this notice dated 20-9-1990, that his father had expired on 24-2-1990 and that he has become the exclusive owner and landlord of the premises in question by virtue of a Will executed by his late father, that he has been depositing the rent from 1-8-1986 regularly in the Court of Munsiff City, Meerut in case No. 13 of 1987, Panna Lal v. Cyan Chandra Garg, and as per details of deposits given in reply, he is not the defaulter and liable to be evicted. On expiry of the period of notice, the Respondent No. 3 filed a suit R. E. No. 268 of 1995 before the Court of Judge, Small Causes Court, Meerut for recovery of the arrears of rent from 1-12-1992 to 28-10-1995 relinquishing claim of rent from October, 1985 to 30th November, 1992 and eviction of the petitioner and for damages for use and occupation after ser vice of the notice. THE petitioner contested the suit. In his written statement, he denied the assertions made in the plaint and pleaded that he had already deposited the rent in the Court according to the rules well within the knowledge of the plaintiff's lather, that in response to the notice served by the plaintiff on him he had in formed him about the deposits giving details thereof and thus, he is not defaulter and liable to be evicted.
The Judge, Small Causes Court rejected the plea of the petitioner and decreed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction alongwith damages for use
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
