Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Sheo Kumar (Since Deceased and Substituted By His Legal Heirs) -Appellant
Versus
XIth A.D. & Sessions Judge and Another -Respondent
Writ A. No. 6206 of 2001
Decided On : 03-12-2012
Section 20 (4) - U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - The court considered whether a tenant's dispute of the rate of rent while complying with Section 20 (4) of the Act can be treated as an unconditional deposit, referencing relevant case law.
Fact of the Case:
The court considered the dispute of the rate of rent by a tenant while complying with Section 20 (4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the issue raised by the petitioner was squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Vijai Laxmi Gangal Vs. Mahendra Pratap Garg 1985 (2) ARC 298, and therefore, dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether a tenant's dispute of the rate of rent could be treated as an unconditional deposit under Section 20 (4) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Vijai Laxmi Gangal Vs. Mahendra Pratap Garg 1985 (2) ARC 298, which held that the mere fact that a tenant did not admit the rate of rent claimed by the landlord and disclosed another figure as the rate of rent does not mean that the deposit was made conditionally.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition based on the exposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in Smt. Vijai Laxmi Gangal (supra).
Heard Sri Pankaj Agarwal, Advocate, holding brief of Sri M.K. Gupta, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Lalit Kumar, learned counsel for respondents.
2. The only question up for consideration is if a tenant while complying with the requirement of Section 20 (4) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") disputed the rate of rent, can it be treated to be an unconditional deposit or not. Sri Pankaj Agarwal, Advocate, appearing for petitioner placed reliance on Apex Court's decision in Manga Sen Vs. Sri Kanchhid Mai 1981 ARC 632 (SC) and a Single Judge judgment of this Court in Radhey Shyam Patwa Vs. Xth Addl. District Judge 1993 (2) ARC 485 (para 7).
3. Per contra, Sri Lalit Kumar, learned counsel for respondents placed reliance on Apex Court's decision in Smt. Vijai Laxmi Gangal Vs. Mahendra Pratap Garg 1985 (2) ARC 298 wherein the Apex Court's decision in Mangal Sen (supra) has been considered and distinguished and it has been clearly held that mere fact that tenant did not admit the rate of rent claimed by landlord and has disclosed another figure as rate of rent, does not mean that the deposit was made conditionally.
4. Sri Pankaj Agarwal, appearing for petitioner, when confronted with the author#31;ity of Apex Court in Smt. Vijai Laxmi Gangal (supra) could not dispute that the issue raised by him is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of Apex Court, against him.
5. In view of above and the exposition of law laid down by Apex Court in Smt. Vijai Laxmi Gangal (supra), I find no merit in writ petition.
6. Dismissed.
_____________
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
