A tenant is liable to pay rent for the entire duration of occupancy, even if they allege unlawful eviction, unless proven otherwise.

1. The petitioner is the tenant who instituted a suit against the respondent – landlord for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.

2. It was the case of the tenant that he was inducted into the residential house in question on 16.09.2017 under an agreement, whereby he had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month as rent and also paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as security deposit and the period of lease was for 11 months. It was stated that this lease period was extended till the filing of the suit and as on the date of the suit, the tenant was paying rent of Rs.13,100/- per month apart from Rs.500/- towards water charges.

3. It was alleged that since the landlord was trying to evict the tenant forcibly and was threatening unlawful eviction, the tenant had issued a legal notice on 01.10.2019 to the landlord and to this, reply was given by the landlord on 20.10.2019 denying all the averments.

4. It was stated that on 26.12.2019, a complaint was lodged to the jurisdictional police. It was also averred that the tenant had vacated the premises on 06.12.2019 itself and had sent a demand for repayment of security deposit and since the same was not repaid, the suit was filed.

5. The landlord entered appearance and admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant. It was also admitted that there was a lease and that the said lease was terminated on 30.09.2019 and the tenant was using the premises without paying the rents. It was also admitted that a notice dated 01.10.2019 sent by the tenant was received, but it was contended that the tenant had not paid the rents from 06.09.2019 till the filing of written statement and he had also not handed over the keys of the house and therefore, he was liable to pay rents from 06.09.2019 till 05.03.2020. It was also stated that the tenant was liable to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards cost of repairs and as a consequence, the tenant was raising a counter claim seeking recovery of Rs.1,31,700/- along with future rents.

6. The Trial Court, on consideration of pleadings and the evidence adduced before it, came to the conclusion that the tenant was in arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.13,100/- per month from 06.09.2019 till handing over of possession and it also held that the advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- paid by the tenant to landlord was not in dispute.

7. It was also noticed that, though the tenant claimed that he had vacated the premises on 06.12.2019, the keys were not actually handed over and only after the suit was filed on 29.01.2020, an application was made on 07.11.2020 by the landlord seeking a direction to the plaintiff/tenant to handover the keys and only thereafter on 06.02.2021, the keys were handed over. The Trial Court has therefore concluded that possession of the house in question was handed over only on 06.02.2021 and consequently, the tenant will have to pay the rent till that particular date.

8. The Trial Court, accordingly, proceeded to decree the suit for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- in favour of the plaintiff. The Trial Court also decreed the counter claim of the landlord and directed the tenant to pay the arrears of rent from 06.09.2019 till 06.02.2021 at the rate of Rs.13,100/- The Trial Court has also directed the landlord to file a memo of calculation after adjusting the security deposit towards arrears of rent along with painting cost of Rs.13,100/-. However, it has held that the landlord was not entitled to claim a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards the cost incurred for repair of the residential house in question. This part of the order has not been challenged by the landlord.

9. Thus, the only issue to be considered in this revision is:

Whether the Trial Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the tenant was liable to pay rents from 06.09.2019 to 06.02.2021?

10. The evidence on record clearly indicates that rents were not paid from 06.09.2019 by the tenant. In fact, it was averred in the plaint itself that the la