Back
2012 Supreme(All) 2651
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Mohammad Azim and Another -Appellant
Versus
Gopal Singh -Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38162 of 2011
Decided On : 06-10-2012
S/Sri Rahul Saxena , Ramendra Asthana, Advocates, for Respondents
Strict compliance with the procedure prescribed in Section 30(1) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 is necessary for tenants to claim the benefit under Section 20(4) of the Act.
Headnote:
Rent Deposit - Tenancy Dispute - U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 - Section 30(1), Section 20(4) - The court discussed the validity of rent deposits made by the tenants under Section 30(1) of the Act, emphasizing the requirement of strict compliance with the procedure prescribed in the statute. The court highlighted the principle that a deposit not made in accordance with the prescribed procedure would not confer any benefit upon the tenants under Section 20(4) of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, tenants of a shop, were directed to vacate the premises and pay rent/damages to the landlord. The dispute arose from the non-payment of rent and the validity of rent deposits made under Section 30(1) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tenants failed to make valid deposits under Section 30(1) of the Act after the death of the original tenant, thereby disentitling them from the benefit under Section 20(4) of the Act. The court upheld the eviction decree in favor of the landlord.
Issues: Validity of rent deposits under Section 30(1) of the Act, compliance with the procedure prescribed in the statute, entitlement of tenants to benefit under Section 20(4) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principle that a deposit not made in accordance with the prescribed procedure in Section 30(1) of the Act would not confer any benefit upon the tenants under Section 20(4) of the Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the eviction decree in favor of the landlord.
1. Petitioners Mohammad Azim and Hasan Miyan, both sons of Late Puttan Khan are tenants of the shop owned by Sri Gopal Singh, son of Sri Gulab Singh (hereinafter referred to as "respondent-landlord") situate at Mohalla Kesari Singh, Pilibhit.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment dated 07.08.2009, of Judge, Small Causes Court/Civil Judge (J.D.), Pilibhit, whereby the trial court has decreed SCC Suit No.3 of 2007 filed by respondent landlord. The petitioners have been directed to vacate the shop in question and hand over vacant possession to the respondent landlord, besides paying rent/damages. The Revisional Court vide judgment and order dated 09.03.2011, passed by the Additional District Judge (Court No.2) Pilibhit, has dismissed petitioners' SCC Revision No. 15 of 2009 which order has also been assailed.
3. The facts giving rise to the present dispute in nutshell are, that, the shop in question as already said, was in the tenancy of petitioners along with their mother and sisters at the monthly rent of Rs.20/-. Initially, the shop in dispute was owned by Smt. Krishna Kumari, wife of Gulab Singh, mother of respondent landlord, who died on 09.10.2006. Thereafter the respondent landlord inherited ownership of the shop in question.
4. Similarly, it was initially in the tenancy of Puttan Khan (since deceased), father of two petitioners, and, after his death, tenancy rights were inherited by his legal heirs including the petitioners.
5. It is alleged that Sri Puttan Khan did not make payment of rent to erstwhile owner, (late) Smt. Krishna Kumari since 01.01.1979 whereafter several notices were given by Smt. Krishna Kumari, the earliest notice being dated 07.10.1982 sent by registered post. The rent yet was not paid. Another notice was issued by registered post on 28.02.1983 which was served on Puttan Khan on 02.03.1983. Subsequently, also notices were sent on 16.02.1998, 02.03.1998 and 21.03.1998 but returned by Postman with endorsement "no-service". Subsequently a notice dated 17.04.1998, sent to (late) Puttan Khan which he refused to accept. Thus (late) Puttan Khan did not make any payment of rent during his life time to Smt. Krishna Kumar, owner, during her lifetime. The tenants, it is alleged, were liable to pay a total rent of Rs. 6860/- for the period 01.01.1979 to 31.07.2007.
6. The respondent-landlord, after death of his mother, sent another notice on 4.8.2007, demanding entire rent of Rs. 6860/- for the period aforesaid from the petitioner tenants, within one month. The notice remained uncomplied though it was served upon the petitioner tenants on 07.08.2007. Their tenancy thus stood terminated after expiry of notice period. Thereafter the respondent landlord filed SCC Suit No. 3 of 2007, seeking eviction of petitioner tenants from the shop in question, recovery of rent of Rs. 720/- for the period 07.09.2004 to 06.09.2007, (the period within limitation from the date of filing suit), damages and costs.
7. The suit was contested by petitioner tenants stating that the then landlord herself was not accepting rent from (late) Puttan Khan, tenant of shop in dispute and, therefore, vide money order dated 19.12.1979, one year's rent i.e., from 01.01.1979 to 31.12.1979 was remitted but it was returned to the sender with the endorsement that the sendee had refused to accept. Thereafter again (late) Puttan Khan made an attempt for payment of rent to Smt. Krishna Kumari but having failed therein, resorted to deposit rent under Section 30(1) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972"). He had filed application under Section 30(1), being R.C. Case No. 1 of 1980, Puttan Khan Vs. Smt. Krishna Kumari in the Court of Munsif, Pilibhit. The application was allowed and he was continuously depositing rent in Court.
8. After death of Smt. Krishna Kumari, again the petitioners-tenants attempted to pay rent to landlord but on refusal again, they ma
