Case title:
MAN SINGH Vs. SHAMIM AHMAD (DEAD) THR. LRS.
Date of Order:
05-04-23
Bench:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SUDHANSHU DHULIA.
Parties:
Appellant: MAN SINGH
Respondent: SHAMIM AHMAD (DEAD) THR. LRS.
SUBJECT:
An appeal was filed by a tenant as a result of eviction and rent court cases. The tenant's eviction action against the landlord was denied, however,
Both the Writ Petition and the J.S.C.C. Revision have been denied. On 11.2.2015, this Court granted leave and, under some restrictions, the impugned decree has stayed.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
The Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972
- Grounds given in sub-section 2 (a) of Section 20 reads as follows:
“(2) A suit for the eviction of a tenant from a building after the determination of his tenancy may be instituted on one or more of the following grounds,
namely: (a) that the tenant is in arrears of rent for not less than four months, and has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month from the date of service upon him of a notice of demand:”
- 30. Deposit of rent in Court in certain circumstances.-
Section 30 of the law states that if a tenant offers to pay rent to their landlord but the landlord refuses to accept it, the tenant can deposit the rent in court and continue to do so for future rent until the landlord agrees to accept it. If there is a dispute about who is entitled to receive the rent, the tenant can also deposit the rent in court and continue to do so until the dispute is settled. The deposit must be made in the court of the Munsif having jurisdiction. The court will then serve notice to the landlord or person concerned and hold the amount for the benefit of the person found entitled to it. The deposit will be deemed as paid to the landlord or person in whose favor it is deposited
- Section 20(4) of the act regarding eviction states that in a lawsuit for eviction based on the grounds mentioned in clause (a) of subsection (2), if the tenant pays or deposits the entire amount of rent and damages for the use and occupation of the building, along with interest and the landlord's cost of the suit, at the first hearing of the case, the court may pass an order relieving the tenant of liability for eviction.
This provision does not apply to tenants who have built or acquired a residential building in the same area. The term "cost of the suit" includes one-half of the amount of counsel's fee taxable for a contested lawsuit. The term "first hearing" refers to the first date for any step or proceeding mentioned in the summons served on the defendant.
OVERVIEW:
- The business in question, known as the "premises," is located in Kotla, Uttar Pradesh. It was leased to the current appellant on January 6, 1982, for a monthly fee of Rs. 165.
- Eventually, the rent was raised to Rs. 195 per month, and then on January 1, 1990, it was raised to Rs. 250 per month.
- The admitted stance is this.
- Even though the Trial Court and the Revisional Court found in favor of the landlord on the additional rent, we must note here that the tenant rejected the landlord's contention that the rent be increased up to Rs. 300 per month.
ISSUES RAISED:
Whether the tenant can withhold information from the landlord and deposit the rent in court while avoiding a rent rise.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT:
The learned attorney for the appellant cited Ajai Agarwal and Ors. v. Har Govind Prasad Singhal and Ors [(2005) 13 SCC 145] as a subsequent judgment of this Court. But the facts were completely different. The counsel for the appellant attempted to draw a comparison with the aforementioned case and would contend that the tenant has been paying the allowed rent in the current case as well.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT:
The Full Bench decision of which reference has been given by the Allahabad High Court in its impugned judgment is Gokaran Singh v. 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hardoi and Ors [2000 SCC OnLine All 174]
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS:
- So, the tenant's reason for not paying rent must have been unpaid for at least "four months" and must have been unpaid within a month of the notice's demand. In addition, even if the rent is not paid and the landlord initiates a lawsuit to evict the tenant, the law still gives the tenant a chance to discharge this obligation by making full rent and arrears payments prior to the lawsuit's initial hearing.
- However, the Allahabad High Court has overturned the Trial Court and Sessions Court's conclusions about the increased rent. According to the High Court, there was no evidence of any "oral agreement" established by the landlord, which called for periodic increases in rent from Rs. 250 per month to Rs. 275 per month, then to Rs. 300 per month, and so on, was shown to the trial court.
- It would be assumed that the correct rent between the parties was Rs. 250 per month, which was being paid by the renter in court under Section 30 of the Act, as the alleged oral agreement between the parties was not proven.
- The High Court addressed another issue and determined that once the landlord delivered the tenant a notice of demand on April 5, 1995 (which the appellant received on 10.04.1995), requesting rent at the higher rate, the tenant was left with no choice but to deposit the rent with the landlord rather than the court. He could, however, only put down the accepted rent (Rs. 250) and not the augmented rent (Rs. 300), and he had to give the landlord the deposit.
- The appeal herein stands dismissed.
CONCLUSION:
The tenant's defense of continuing to deposit "admitted rent" in court is not valid if the landlord has expressed willingness to accept the rent. Once the landlord agrees to accept the rent, it must be given to the landlord directly and not to the court. Section 30 allows the defendant to deposit rent in court only until the landlord agrees to receive it directly. This judgment by the Allahabad High Court correctly explains this law. In other words, the tenant can only deposit rent in Court, as long as the landlord has refused to accept the rent.
