Back
2018 Supreme(All) 2228
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
Ram Ratan - Appellant
Versus
Judge Small Causes Court And Ors. - Respondents
Matters Under Article 227 No. 2415 of 2018
Decided On : 10-12-2018
For the Appellant : Pankaj Agarwal, Vatsala.
For the Respondent: Sumit Daga.
Headnote:
Rent Control Act, 1972 – Section 30 (1) Constitution of India – Article 227 – Seeking Quashment of judgment and order passed by Additional District Judge and Judge, Small Causes Court – Opposite party no.3-landlord instituted SCC Suit alleging default in payment of rent and shop in question is new construction and exempted from Act, 1972 - Despite demand notice asking for arrears of rent and determining tenancy, tenant had failed to vacate premises – Held, This Court had considered all previous judgments/binding precedents and laid down law to which respectfully agree that if landlord had demanded rent by his notice – Tenant ought to have offered rent first to landlord, more so when his Misc. Case filed before Civil Judge already stood dismissed no attempt was made thereafter during pendency of suit to deposit rent before Trial Court by tenant – Petition dismissed – (Paras: 32 and 33)
Facts of the case:
Seeking Quashment of judgment and order passed by Additional District Judge and Judge, Small Causes Court – Opposite party no.3-landlord instituted SCC Suit alleging default in payment of rent and shop in question is new construction and exempted from Act, 1972 - Despite demand notice asking for arrears of rent and determining tenancy, tenant had failed to vacate premises.
Findings of the court:
This Court had considered all previous judgments/binding precedents and laid down law to which respectfully agree that if landlord had demanded rent by his notice – Tenant ought to have offered rent first to landlord, more so when his Misc. Case filed before Civil Judge already stood dismissed no attempt was made thereafter during pendency of suit to deposit rent before Trial Court by tenant.
Result: Petition dismissed
1. The petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for quashing of the judgment and order dated 24.02.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 9 Meerut in SCC Revision No. 24 of 2014 and also prays for quashing of the judgment and order dated 12.11.2013 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Meerut in SCC Suit No. 30 of 2012.
2. Facts which are relevant for decision of the controversy are to the effect that the petitioner is the tenant of a shop situated in a building bearing Municipal No. 195 at Police Street, Opposite Ganga Motor Committee, Meerut Cantt. Meerut.
3. It has been stated in the petition that the petitioner is a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.900/- and opposite party no. 3-Vijay Kumar Goel is owner and the landlord.
4. The opposite party no. 3 instituted SCC Suit No. 30 of 2012 alleging default in payment of rent w.e.f. 01.09.2011 and that the shop in question is a new construction and exempted from the Rent Control Act, 1972 (herein after referred to as the Act No. 13 of 1972). It was also alleged that despite a demand notice asking for arrears of rent and determining the tenancy, the tenant had failed to vacate the premises. In the plaint it was alleged that the tenant had paid rent up to 31.12.2011 and a notice dated 03.02.2012 was served upon him by the plaintiff praying for rent w.e.f. 01.09.2011 to 31.12.2012. Despite such payment being demanded, the tenant did not pay and also failed to vacate the premises.
5. The tenant, on the other hand, filed a written statement alleging that rent had been paid by him up to 31.12.2011 but rent receipt had not been given by the landlord. A notice was issued by the tenant on 03.02.2012 demanding issuance of rent receipts for the period w.e.f. 01.09.2011 up to 31.12.2011 and a request was made to accept rent w.e.f. 01.01.2012 to 31.01.2012. In reply to such notice and as a counterblast the landlord has sent notice dated 18.02.2012 demanding rent w.e.f. 01.09.2011.
6. The tenant replied to such notice stating that on refusal to accept rent as offered by the tenant to the landlord the rent was deposited in Misc. Case No. 60 of 2012 under Section 30 of the Act No. 13 of 1972 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Meerut. It was also disputed that the property in question was newly constructed and was exempted from U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.
7. It has been argued that the Judge, Small Causes Court decided the issue of applicability of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 erroneously in favour of the landlord and thereafter without considering the written statement of the tenant that he had deposited rent in Misc. Case No. 60 of 2012 decreed the suit in favour of the landlord. The petitioner-tenant thereafter filed SCC Revision which was also rejected erroneously.
8. I have heard Shri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sumit Daga, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3.
9. Shri Pankaj Agarwal has relied upon a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Swaroop Rai vs. Smt. Lilawati reported in 1980 ARC 466 (SC) (paragraphs 8 and 10 thereof).
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the date of first hearing of the suit and the applicability of section 20 (4) ought to be considered in the light of the law settled by the Supreme Court in Ved Prakash Wadhwa vs. Vishwa Mohan reported in 1981 ARC 1.
11. With regard to deposit of rent by the tenant under section 30 (1) of the Act, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court rendered in Mohd. Rafiq vs Additional District Judge and others reported in 1996 (1) ARC 450 (paragraphs 2,3,4,7 and 8 thereof).
12. Shri Sumit Daga, learned counsel who appears for the opposite party no. 3 on the other hand has relied upon judgments rendered by this Court in the case of State of U.P. through Collector, Basti and Another vs II Additional District Judge, Basti and Others reported in 2000 (2) ARC 438, Mohd. Si
