SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(All) 3174

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.
Ram Nath - Appellant
Versus
Ist A.D.J. - Respondent
Rent Control No. - 241, 242 of 1990
Decided On : 11-12-2013

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:- Umesh Kumar Srivastava,Mohiuddin Khan
For the Respondent:- C.S.C.,A.R.Khan,R.V.Singh

The court emphasized the importance of compliance with deposit requirements and the bonafides of the tenant in refusing to strike off the defense.

Headnote:

Deposit - Landlord-Tenant Dispute - U.P. Act N.13 of 1972, Order XV Rule 5, C.P.C. - Section 30 of U.P. Act N.13 of 1972, Section 115, C.P.C. - AIR 1986 SC 1645, AIR 1996 SC 729, AIR 2002 SC 433, AIR 2003 SC 153, AIR 1981 SC 1657

Fact of the Case:

The landlord filed two writ petitions against the tenant. The first petition arose from a suit for eviction, and the second petition arose from proceedings under Section 30 of U.P. Act N.13 of 1972. The court analyzed the compliance of deposit requirements and the validity of the deposits made by the tenant.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the defense was rightly refused to be struck off in the first petition as the deposits were in excess, made in advance, and any delay in deposits was trivial. The second petition was dismissed as infructuous since the rent deposited was again deposited in the suit.

Issues: Compliance with deposit requirements, validity of deposits, and refusal to strike off defense.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the excess deposits, advance deposits, trivial delays, and the deposit of rent under Section 30 of the Act showed the bonafides of the tenant, leading to the refusal to strike off the defense.

Final Decision: The first writ petition was dismissed on merit, and the second writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. The tenant was allowed to withdraw the amount deposited under Section 30 of the Act.

JUDGMENT

Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.

Heard Sri M. A. Khan, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan for the petitioner and Sri A.R. Khan, learned counsel for contesting respondent in both the writ petitions, which have been filed by the landlord.

2. First writ petition arises out of S.C.C. Suit No.29 of 1985 filed by landlord petitioner against tenant respondent No.3, Badri Vishal (Ram Nath Vs. Badri Vishal). J.S.C.C./ Civil Judge Baharaich through order dated 23.03.1987 rejected the application of the landlord for striking off the defence of the tenant under Order XV Rule 5, C.P.C. Revision field against the same in the form of S.C.C. Revision No.54 of 987 was dismissed by I A.D.J., Baharaich on 23.09.1989, hence first writ petition.

3. As far as second writ petition between same parties is concerned, the same has also been filed by the landlord which arises out of proceedings under Section 30 of U.P. Act N.13 of 1972 initiated by the tenant Badri Vishal (respondent No.2 in the second writ petition). The application was registered as Misc. Case No.177/70/85, Badri Vishal Vs. Ram Nath. Munsif, Baharaich rejected the application and permitted the tenant to withdraw the deposited amount. In one sentence the reason for rejection of the application was given, which was to the effect that "O.P. did not refuse to receive the rent". Against the said order, tenant Badri Vishal filed Civil Revision No.91 of 1997. First A.D.J. Baraich allowed the revision through order dated 23.09.1989. (The revision had been filed under Section 115, C.P.C.) The said order has been challenged through second writ petition.

4. The Supreme Court in Maiku Vs. Vilayat Hussain, AIR 1986 SC 1645 has held that whether the deposit under Section 30 of the Act (or Section 7-C of the of the old Rent Control Act) is valid or not on the ground that landlord had refused to accept the rent or not is to be seen in the suit which is subsequently filed and not in the application under Section 30 of the act.

5. In the following authorities, the Supreme Curt has held that if rent is deposited under Section 30 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (or similar provisions in the Rent Control Act of other States) without tendering the same to the landlord then the deposit is not valid.

(i) AIR 1996 SC 729 (arising out Rajsthan Rent Control Act)

(ii) AIR 2002 SC 433 (arising out Rajsthan Rent Control Act)

(iii) AIR 2003 SC 153 (arising out Madras Rent Control Act)

6. As far as first writ petition is concerned, J.S.C.C. In its order dated 23.03.1987 mentioned that defendant tenant had deposited Rs.2063.85 on 06.12.1985 which included the entire rent from April, 1983 to December, 1985 along with cost, court fees and interest. It was also mentioned that subsequently rent till 31.01.1987 had also been deposited. It was also held that 06.12.1985 was the date of first hearing.

7. In the plaint, rent from April, 1985 to September, 1985 along with house tax, water tax etc. was demanded. Application for striking off the defence was given on 12.01.1987. Suit was filed on 01.11.1985. The revisional court categorically held that 06.12.1985 was the date of first hearing and on that date complete compliance of Order XV Rule 5, C.P.C. as well as of Section 20(4) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 according to which if suit is filed on the ground of default and on the first date of hearing entire rent, cost of the suit and interest is deposited then decree of eviction may not be passed had been made. The main point decided by the revisional court was regarding non-compliance of second limb of Section XV Rule 5, C.P.C. requiring that after making the deposit on first date of hearing deposit of rent for subsequent months during the pendency of the suit should regularly be made. The revisional court found that rent for the subsequent months was deposited in the following manner:

Rent for the period Date of deposit

01.01.1986-28.02.1986 12.02.1986

01.03.1986-31.05.1986 22.04.1986

01.06.1986-31.07.1986 09.07.19










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top