Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. Munir, J.
Raja Ram - Petitioner
Versus
Saroj Bala - Respondent
Matters Under Article 227 No. 1459 of 2017
Decided On : 11-11-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 227 –U.P. U.B. Rules – Rule 21 – Demanding rent for the period – Suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits – Period of default – Tenant's petition arising out of a decree for eviction passed by Judge, Small Cause Court in a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits etc – Decree has been affirmed in revision by the Additional District Judge – Held, It is not in dispute that on date of first hearing, the tenant has not unconditionally paid, tendered to landlord or deposited in Court entire amount of rent and damages for use and occupation for demised shop, together with interest at specified rate and landlord's costs of suit – Tenant did not deposit on date of first hearing, believing perhaps that he had deposited entire rent validly under Section 30(1) of the Act, which he is entitled to deduct/ set off effacing all outstandings – Tenant’s belief is not vindicated, and, therefore, irrelevant – This being undisputed position, which has also been specifically held by Trial Court on its findings on Issue No. 4, the tenant cannot claim any relief from his liability for eviction – Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. This is a tenant's petition arising out of a decree for eviction passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court in a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits etc. The decree has been affirmed in revision by the Additional District Judge.
2. Saroj Bala, wife of Jai Prakash instituted S.C.C. Suit No. 30 of 2007 before the Judge, Small Cause Court, Ghaziabad on allegations that she is the owner and landlady of a house bearing premises No. 5 (presently numbered as 3), situate at Purvi Ismail Khan, Turab Nagar, Ghaziabad. Within the said premises, she has a shop, assigned private No. 8, wherein Raja Ram, the defendant, is a tenant at the rate of Rs. 30/-per month (excluding taxes -water tax, house tax and sewer tax). The tenancy is one from month to month. Raja Ram, who shall hereinafter be called 'the tenant', carries on a tailor's shop in the aforesaid tenanted premises (for short, 'the demised shop') under the name and style of ‘Samrat Tailors’. The business he keeps on changing and is currently engaging himself in the retail of shoes and other footwear. The tenancy commences on the first of every calendar month and ends on the last day. The premises, housing the demised shop, are an old construction and the provisions of The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972), for short, ‘the Act’, are applicable to it. The tenant has never paid Smt. Saroj Bala (hereinafter referred to as 'the landlady') rent for the demised shop on the date that it fell due and without the service of a demand notice upon him. In this regard, the landlady served a notice upon the tenant on 17.07.2000, demanding rent for the period, then in arrears, that is to say, from 01.01.2000 to July, 2000. The notice was duly served upon the tenant.
3. It is averred that the tenant is in arrears of rent since 01.01.2002, which the landlady has, time and again, demanded of him orally. The tenant, however, did not remit all arrears of rent to the landlady. The tenant does not carry on any gainful business in the demised shop. On this account, he is found, time and again, partnering or subletting the demised shop to persons, who are not members of his family, without the landlady's consent. It is averred that it had recently come to the landlady's knowledge that in the month of September, 1994, the tenant sublet the demised shop to one Neeraj Garg son of Kailash Chand Garg, a resident of Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad, inducting the subtenant aforesaid in the demised shop for a sum of Rs.1500/-per mensem. The subtenancy is for a period of five years. In this connection, the tenant and Neeraj had entered into a rent agreement in the presence of witnesses. The aforesaid act of the tenant also renders him liable for ejectment.
4. It is pleaded by the landlady specifically that the rent due to her, outstanding against the tenant, is for the period of 01.01.2002 to July, 2007. Upon this state of default, the landlady instructed her Counsel, Mr. Satyadev Verma to serve the tenant a notice of demand and quit. Accordingly, a notice of demand and quit dated 11.07.2007 was issued to him.
5. It is pleaded that after the landlady had caused the earlier notice of demand in the year 2002 to be served upon the tenant, he instituted Misc. Case No. 35 of 2002, under Section 30(1) of the Act before the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Ghaziabad, seeking permission of the Court to deposit rent. The case aforesaid was instituted by the tenant on incorrect facts. Upon receipt of notice of the said case, the landlady filed her written objections, stating that she had never declined to receive rent and further made a prayer in writing as well as orally, that the tenant may pay the due rent to her by hand. On the aforesaid basis, the Court, seized of the Section 30 proceedings, directed the tenant to pay all outstandings of rent due until then which the landlady demanded, but the tenant did not pay the entire ren
Section 30 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 cannot be invoked for rent deposits once an eviction suit is pending, requiring adherence to procedural rules of the ongoing legal proceedings.
Tenants cannot be evicted for non-payment of rent if they have made proper deposits under legal requirements, and landlords had knowledge of these deposits.
The judgment emphasized the mandatory nature of the provisions of the Rent Control Act and the requirement for the tenant to offer rent to the landlord before depositing it in Court.
Tenant can only deposit rent in Court as long as landlord has refused to accept rent – Once landlord expresses his willingness to accept rent, tenant has no option but to deposit rent to landlord.
Point of Law : The provisions under Order XV Rule 5(2) provides a locus poenitentiae to the defaulting tenant to make a representation, which must be made within ten days of the first hearing or with....
A tenant must deposit all arrears of rent, including time-barred amounts, to claim protection from eviction under Section 15(3) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.
The court established that consistent non-payment of rent during proceedings justifies eviction under the UP Rent Act.
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
