Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(All) 499

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J
Fayyazuddin - Petitioner
Versus
Prashant Kumar Singh and another - Respondents
Matters Under Article 227 No. 6007 of 2026
Decided On : 21-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Digvijay Singh
For the Respondent: Abhijeet Mukherji, Sushmita Mukherjee

Rent deposits made under statutory provisions require strict compliance with procedural rules, including notifying the landlord. Failure to adhere to these rules or the acquisition of alternative residential property by the tenant's family invalidates the deposit and disqualifies the tenant from seeking statutory protection against an eviction decree.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Rent Control Law - Grounds of eviction - Default in payment of rent - Requirement of statutory deposit - Deposit of rent in court without serving the prescribed notice upon the landlord as required by relevant rules is invalid - The legal fiction of payment is only triggered upon strict procedural compliance. (Paras 30, 40, 50)

(B) Statutory Protection - Section 20(4) - Proviso - Disqualification - Acquisition of residential building by family member - Tenant is ineligible for statutory protection against eviction if they or any member of their family have acquired a residential building in the same municipal limits. (Paras 33, 58)

(C) Supervisory Jurisdiction - Scope - Court exercising powers under Article 227 shall not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they suffer from manifest perversity, patent illegality, or jurisdictional infirmity. (Paras 59, 64)

Facts of the case:
The landlord filed an eviction suit for non-payment of rent. The tenant claimed that rent was deposited in court, invoking statutory protection. The landlord contended that the deposits were invalid due to failure to serve the mandatory notice to the landlord and argued that the tenant was disqualified from receiving relief because their family had acquired a residential property in the same municipal area.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the tenant’s failure to provide notice of the court deposit to the landlord rendered the deposit ineffective. Consequently, the tenant remained a defaulter. Further, the evidence confirmed the acquisition of residential property by the tenant’s family, which triggered the statutory disqualification against claiming protection from eviction.

Issues: Whether the rent deposits made by the tenant without formal notice to the landlord conform to the statutory requirements, and whether the acquisition of a residential property by the tenant’s family precludes them from statutory protection against an eviction decree.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory procedures for rent deposit are mandatory conditions for relief. Non-compliance with procedural requirements for notifying the landlord defeats the legal fiction of payment. Additionally, the statutory exclusion regarding the acquisition of independent residential accommodation is absolute, rendering the tenant ineligible for protection regardless of the nature of the tenanted premises.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. eviction proceedings initiated for default in rent and municipal taxes. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. parties' contentions regarding rent tender and deposit validity. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. concurrent findings of trial and revisional courts supporting eviction. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. arguments concerning mandatory compliance versus substantial compliance of statutory rent deposits. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
5. statutory requirements under section 30 and rule 21 of u.p. act no. 13 of 1972. (Para 28 , 29 , 30)
6. interrelationship between section 20(4) and section 30 of the act. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
7. strict compliance with procedural requirements for valid rent deposits. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
8. judicial precedents emphasizing strict adherence to statutory rent deposit procedures. (Para 43 , 44 , 45)
9. failure to fulfill mandatory notice and tender requirements invalidates rent deposits. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55)
10. statutory disqualification from eviction protection via acquisition of residential accommodation. (Para 56 , 57 , 58)
11. limited scope of supervisory jurisdiction under article 227. (Para 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66)
12. dismissal of petition and affirmation of lower court decrees. (Para 67 , 68)

JUDGMENT :

YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard Sri Shashi Kant Shukla, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Sri Digvijay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Tarun Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Ms. Sushmita Mukherjee and Sri Abhijeet Mukherji, counsel for the respondents.

2. The present petition has been instituted by the tenant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the judgment and decree dated 02.03.2019 passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, Bijnor in SCC Suit No.35 of 2012, whereby the suit instituted by the respondent-landlords for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent and damages came to be decreed, as well as the judgment and order dated 28.03.2026 passed by the revisional court in SCC Revision No.11 of 2019 affirming the same.

3. The disputed premises, namely Haveli No.293 comprising two eastern-facing rooms, one southern-facing room together with a verandah, inner and outer courtyards and a boundary wall situated at Kasba Haldaur, District Bijnor, was admittedly let out to the petitioner-tenant on 01.12.1962 by the erstwhile owner, late Kunwar Shiv Mahendra Kumar Singh. The tenancy was pleaded to be a month-to-month tenancy commencing from the first day of each English calendar month and terminating on the last day thereof, and it is not in dispute that the provisions of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972[U.P. Act No.13 of 1972] were applicable to the premises in question.

4. According to the plaint allegations, the petitioner-tenant committed default in payment of rent as well as municipal taxes. It was specifically pleaded that although rent had remained unpaid with effect from 01.04.1993, the respondent-landlords, keeping in view the law of limitation, restricted their claim for arrears to the period from 01.09.2009 to 31.08.2012.

5. It was further alleged that despite repeated demands and service of notice, the tenant neither cleared the outstanding dues nor vacated the tenanted premises. The landlords caused a notice dated 09.10.2012 to be issued through counsel demanding payment of arrears and terminating the tenancy, which was returned unserved with a postal endorsement indicating that the addressee was not available. Subsequently, another notice dated 25.10.2012 was sent requiring the tenant to clear the arrears of rent, municipal taxes and notice expenses within one month and intimating termination of tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act upon expiry of the notice period; this notice was returned with a postal endorsement of refusal dated 31.10.2012.

6. Consequ