http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: KAMESHWAR SINGH SRIVASTAVA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: IV ADDL. DIST. JUDGE LUCKNOW & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT14/11/1986

BENCH: SINGH, K.N. (J) BENCH: SINGH, K.N. (J) MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)

CITATION:  1987 AIR  138            1987 SCR  (1) 224  1986 SCC  (4) 661        JT 1986   842  1986 SCALE  (2)797  CITATOR INFO :  D          1988 SC 452  (11)

ACT:     U.P.  Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting,  Rent  and Eviction)  Act, 1972--Sections 20 & 30--Bonafide dispute  as regards landlord’s right to receive rent--Landlord  refusing to  accept  rent without justification- Tenant  entitled  to initiate proceedings to deposit rent in Court.

HEADNOTE:     On  the  death of the owner, landlord  of  the  tenanted premises,  his  heirs respondents, Nos. 3 to 12  became  the owners. The appellanttenant tendered rent to respondent  No. 3 but he did not accept the same. The appellant made  appli- cation  before the Munsif under s. 30(1) of the  U.P.  Urban Buildings  (Regulation  of Letting, Rent  &  Eviction)  Act, 1972,  who permitted deposit of the rent and since then  the appellant  had been depositing rent in the  Munsif’s  Court. The  respondentlandlords  served a notice on  the  appellant calling  upon him to vacate the premises, hand over  posses- sion  and  pay  the  arrears of  rents  from  18.10.1979  to 17.9.1982.  In  his reply the appellant stated that  he  was ready  and willing to pay the rent, and if respondent No.  3 was  willing  to accept the rent he may  inform  him  within reasonable time so that he may pay the same to him otherwise he  would  deposit the rent in the Munsif’s Court.  The  re- spondent-landlords  did not give any reply to the  appellant instead  they  filed suit for his  eviction.  Meanwhile  the appellant deposited the entire amount of arrears in Munsif’s Court.     The Judge, Small Causes Court, decreed the suit  holding that  the  appellant had committed default for a  period  of four months from the date of suit. The revision filed by the appellant  was  dismissed by the District  Judge.  The  High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant under  Article 226 holding that the appellant had failed to tender  arrears of rent within one month from the date of service of  notice on him and, therefore, he was liable to ejectment.     In  appeal  to this Court on behalf  of  the  appellant- ten.ant it was urged, that the courts below failed to appre- ciate,  that  the  appellant had all along  been  ready  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

willing to pay the rent to the landlords and in the reply to the  notice he had offered to pay rent on hearing  from  re- spondent  No. 3 but since the appellant did not receive  any reply, he 225 deposited the rent in Munsil"s Court under s.30 and,  there- fore,  he  was  not liable to ejectment. On  behalf  of  the respondent-landlords it was urged that all the three  Courts have  recorded findings holding the appellant in arrears  of rent  for a period of more than four months on the  date  of the suit, therefore, the impugned orders do not suffer  from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. Allowing the appeal of the appellant-tenant,     HELD: 1. The High Court as well as the Courts below have taken  a too technical view in holding the appellant  guilty of wilful default in payment of rent. [230B] 2. The High Court as well as the Courts below have committed error  in holding that the appellant had failed to  pay  ar- rears  of rent for a period of more than four months and  on that ground he was liable to ejectment from the premises  in dispute. [231B]     3.  On landlord’s serving notice of demand on  a  tenant who may be in arrears of rent for a period of more than four months,  and on the tenant’s failure to tender the  rent  to the  landlord within one month from the service of  the  no- tice,  the tenant is liable to eviction, but in the  instant case,  having regard to the special facts and  circumstances available on the record it cannot be said that the appellant failed to tender the rent to the landlords or that he was in arrear  for  a period of more than four months. He  was  all along already to pay and since the landlord did not give any reply  to  his notice, he was justified  in  depositing  the arrears in the Munsif’s Court. Since the deposit was made it must  be deemed that the appellant had tendered rent to  the landlords  as  contemplated by s. 13(6) of the  Act.  [230H- 231B]     4.  The  question  whether the tenant  is  justified  in depositing the rent in Court and whether the deeming  provi- sion of s. 30(6) would be applicable to relieve him from the liability of eviction would depend upon facts of each  case. The  appellant,  in the instant case, had  relieved  himself from the liability of eviction and he was not in arrears  of rent for a period of more than four months. [23IF-G]     5. The scheme, structure and the policy discernible from the  provisions of the U.P. Urban Buildings  (Regulation  of Letting,  Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 unmistakably  aim  at regulating  the conditions of tenancy, rent  and  preventing eviction of tenants. The legislature has taken care to  make special provisions protecting the interest of tenants 226 from  eviction while placing obligation on him to pay  rent. The right of a tenant not to be evicted and the  prohibition against a landlord from seeking eviction except upon  speci- fied  grounds  are well protected by the provisions  of  the Act,  and the tenant is afforded an opportunity to  pay  ar- rears  of  rent even after filing of the suit and,  in  some cases even after a decree of eviction is passed. [229G-230A]     6. The special provisions as contained in ss. 30(4), 30, 39  and 40 indicate the legislative policy to safeguard  the interest  of a tenant, who deposits rent in accordance  with those provisions. The Court must strive to so interpret  the statute as to protect and advance the object and purpose  of the enactment. Any narrow or technical interpretation of the provisions  would defeat the legislative policy. The  Courts must,  therefore,  keep the legislative policy  in  mind  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

applying the provisions of the Act to the facts of the case. [230B]     7. Primarily a tenant is under a legal obligation to pay rent to the landlord as and when due and if he fails to  pay the same on demand from the landlord and if he is in arrears for a period of more than four months he would be liable  to ejectment.  Where there is a bonafide dispute regarding  the landlord’s  right to receive rent on account of their  being several  claimants or if the landlord refuses to accept  the rent without there being any justification for the same, the tenant would be justified to take proceeding under s. 30  of the Act and deposit the rent in Court. Thereupon he would be deemed  to have paid the rent to landlord, consequently,  he would  be  relieved of liability of eviction. It  does  not, however, follow that the tenant is entitled to disregard the landlord or ignore his demand for payment of rent to him and deposit the same in Court. There should be justification for depositing  rent in court, in the absence of any  justifica- tion, tenant would be liable to eviction. [231C-E]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 203 of 1986     ’From  the  Judgment and Order dated  16.7.1985  of  the Allahabad High Court in W.P. No. 995 of 1985. Manoj Swaroop and Ms. Lalita Kohli for the Appellant.     A.K. Gupta, Brij Bhushan Sharma and S.K. Dhingra for the Respondents.       227 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     SINGH,  J.  This  appeal by special  leave  is  directed against the Judgment and Order of the High Court of  Allaha- bad (Lucknow Bench) dated 16.7.85 dismissing the appellant’s petition  filed under Article 226 of the Constitution  chal- lenging  orders for his eviction from the premises  in  dis- pute.     Briefly  the facts giving rise to this appeal are,  that the  appellant was a tenant on a monthly rent of  Rs.100  of house No. 293/246 situated in old Haider Ganj of which  N.N. Meithy  was  the owner and landlord. On Meithy’s  death  his heirs  respondents  nos. 3 to 12 became the  owners  of  the house. It appears that the appellant tendered rent to  Prab- hat  Kumar respondent no. 3 but he did not accept the  same. The  appellant  made  application before  the  Munsif  under section  30(1)  of the U.P. Urban Buildings  (Regulation  of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter  referred to as the Act). The Munsif permitted the appellant to depos- it  rent  and since then the appellant has  been  depositing rent in the Munsif’s court. The respondent-landlords  served a  notice  dated 4.8.82 on the appellant on  9.8.82  through their  counsel calling upon him to vacate the  premises  and hand  over  possession to them and to pay the  arrears  with effect  from 18.10.1979 to 17.9.1982. The appellant  through his  Advocate gave a reply to the notice on  6.9.82  stating therein  that he was ready and willing to pay the rent,  and if  Prabhat  Kumar Meithy, respondent no. 3 was  willing  to accept the rent he may inform the appellant within  reasona- ble  time  so that he may pay the same to him  otherwise  he would  deposit the rent in the Miscellaneous Case No.  57/78 in the Munsif’s court. The respondentlandlords did not  give any  reply  to  the appellant instead they  filed  suit  for eviction.  Meanwhile  the  appellant  deposited  the  entire amount of arrears in Munsif’s court on 6.10.1982. The appel- lant  contested the eviction proceedings before  the  Judge,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

Small  Causes Court on the ground that he was  always  ready and  willing  to pay rent and on landlords’ refusal  he  had deposited  rent in the court under section 30(1) of the  Act therefore  he was not liable to ejectment- The Judge,  Small Causes  Court  decreed  the suit on the  findings  that  the appellant had committed default for a period of four  months from  the  date of suit. The  appellant  preferred  revision before  the District Judge which was dismissed  on  22.2.85. Thereafter  the  appellant approached the High  Court  under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking relief  for quashing the order of the Trial Court as well as  Revisional court. A learned single judge of the High Court by his order dt. 16.7.1985 dismissed the petition on the finding that the appellant had failed to 228 tender the arrears of rent to the landlord within one  month from  the date of service of notice on him therefore he  was liable to ejectment and the findings recorded by the  subor- dinate court did not suffer from any legal infirmity.     Learned  counsel for the appellant urged that  the  High Court  and  the courts below failed to appreciate  that  the appellant  had all along been ready and willing to  pay  the rent  to the landlords and in his reply to the notice  dated 6.9.82 he had offered to pay the rent on hearing from  Prab- hat Kumar Meithy, respondent no. 3. But since the  appellant did not receive any reply he deposited the rent in  Munsif’s court  in  proceedings taken under section 30  of  the  Act, therefore  he was not liable to ejectment. On behalf of  the respondent-landlords it was urged that all the three  courts have  recorded findings holding the appellant in arrears  of rent  for a period of more than four months on the date  the suit  was instituted, therefore the impugned Orders  do  not suffer  from any illegality warranting interference by  this Court. Having given our anxious consideration to the submis- sions made by the counsel for the parties and having perused the  material on record, and after considering the  relevant provisions  of the Act we are of the opinion that  the  High Court as well as the courts below have taken a too technical view  in holding the appellant guilty of wilful  default  in payment of rent.     The. U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting,  Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 was enacted as the preamble  indicates to  provide, in the interest of the general public, for  the regulation of letting and rent, and the eviction of  tenants from,  certain classes of buildings situate in urban  areas, and  for  matters  connected therewith.  Section  4  imposes prohibition on a landlord to take or receive for admitting a tenant  to  any building any premium or  additional  payment over  and  above the rent payable by him. Sections 8  and  9 provided  for determination of standard rent in the  absence of  any agreement between the tenant and the landlord.  Sec- tion 11 curtails right of a landlord to induct any tenant in a  building in pursuance of an allotment order issued  under sec. 16. Section 16 provides for allotment of building which may have fallen vacant or is about to fail vacant, or a part thereof  to the landlord if he bonafide requires  the  same. Section  20(1) prohibits institution of a suit  by  landlord for  eviction  of a tenant except on the  grounds  specified under  sub-sec.  (2). Section 20(2)(a) permits filing  of  a suit  by  a  landlord for the eviction of  a  tenant,  after determination  of his tenancy if the tenant is in arrear  of rent  for a period of not less than four months, and he  has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month 229 from  the date of service upon him a notice of demand.  When

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

the  tenant  fails to pay arrears of rent within  one  month from the date of service of notice of demand the landlord is entitled  to obtain decree of eviction but  the  legislature has  provided another opportunity to the tenant  to  relieve himself from the liability of eviction. Section 20(4)  safe- guards tenants from eviction if on the first date of hearing of  the  suit  he unconditionally pays, or  tenders  to  the landlord  or deposits the entire amount of rent and  damages for use and occupation of the building together with  inter- est  thereon  @ 9% and the landlords’ costs of the  suit  in respect thereof, after deducting therefrom any amount depos- ited  by him under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 30. If that is  done the Court is bound to pass orders relieving the tenant  from liability  of  eviction. Legislative policy to  protect  the tenant  from eviction is further evidenced from sec. 39  and 40. Section 39 protects a tenant from eviction, it lays down that  if  a suit for eviction on the ground  of  default  in payment  of arrears of rent was pending on the date of  com- mencement of the Act no decree for eviction shall be  passed if  the  tenant deposited arrears of rent within  one  month from  the date of commencement of the Act. Section  40  also protects tenants from eviction in similar circumstances even at the stage of the pendency of appeal or revision.  Section 30  of  the Act lays down that if a  dispute  or  difference arises  as to the entitlement of landlord to  receive  rent, the  tenant  may deposit rent in the prescribed  manner  and continue to do so in the Munsif’s court, until the  landlord signifies in writing his readiness and willingness to accept the rent and if the landlord does not accept the rent it  is open  to the tenant to deposit the rent in  Munsif’s  court. Once  deposit  is made under sub-sec. (1)  the  court  shall cause notice of the deposit to be served on the landlord and the amount so deposited may be withdrawn by him on an appli- cation made by him to the court. Section 30(6) declares that if deposit is made under sub-sec. (1) or under sub-sec.  (3) of  the  Act in Munsif’s court it shall be deemed  that  the tenant has paid the rent to the landlord. The deeming provi- sion  stipulates that if the tenant is permitted to  deposit rent  in  court, it will amount to payment of  rent  to  the landlord and no decree for eviction of tenant can legally be passed on the ground of arrears of rent.      The  Scheme  and structure and the  policy  discernible from  the provisions of the Act, as discussed,  unmistakably aim  at regulating the conditions of tenancy, rent and  pre- venting eviction of tenants. The legislature has taken  care to  make special provisions protecting the interest of  ten- ants  from eviction while placing obligation on him  to  pay rent. The right of a tenant not to be evicted and the prohi- bition against a landlord from seeking eviction except  upon specified grounds are 230 well  protected by the provisions of the Act and the  tenant is  afforded opportunity to pay arrears of rent  even  after filing  of the suit, and, in some cases even after a  decree of  eviction is passed. The special provisions as  contained in  secs.  30(4),  30, 39 and 40  indicate  the  legislative policy to safeguard the interest of a tenant, who he  depos- its rent in accordance with those provisions. The court must strive to so interpret the statute as to protect and advance the  object  and  purpose of the enactment.  Any  narrow  or technical interpretation of the provisions would defeat  the legislative  policy.  The  courts must  therefore  keep  the legislative policy in mind in applying the provisions of the act to facts of each case.     In  the  instant case on the death of  N.N.  Meithy  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

original landlord, eight different persons respondents  nos. 3  to 12 succeeded to him. The appellant was in doubt as  to which  of  them  was entitled to receive rent,  he  made  an attempt  to tender rent to Prabhat Kumar, respondent  no.  3 but  he refused to accept the same, thereupon the  appellant made  an application under sec. 30(1) in the Munsif’s  court and  on the permission being granted to him he continued  to deposit  rent in that court. It is true that on  service  of the landlord’s notice of demand on 8.9.82 the appellant  did not tender the amount to the respondents, instead he gave  a reply  on 6.9.82 stating therein that he was willing to  pay the rent to the landlord, Prabhat Kumar, respondent no. 3 if he expressed his willingness in writing to accept the  same. The  appellant’s insistence in requesting Prabhat  Kumar  to signify his willingness in writing appears to be founded  on the  provision  of sec. 30(1) of the Act. It  is  noteworthy that  in  his notice dt. 6.9.82 the  appellant  had  clearly stated  that  he was ready and willing to pay  the  rent  to Prabhat Kumar if he signified his willingness in writing  to accept the rent within a reasonable time otherwise he  would deposit the same in the Munsif’s court in Misc. Case no.  57 of  1978. Admittedly the appellant’s notice dt.  6.9.82  was served on the respondent-landlords but no reply was sent  to the  appellant,  instead they filed suit for  his  eviction. Since no reply was received by the appellant from the  land- lords  he  ,deposited the arrears of rent  in  the  Munsif’s court  in Misc. Case No. 57/78. In the face of  these  facts and  circumstances it would be unjust to hold the  appellant in arrears of rent, rendering him liable to eviction. It  is true that on landlord’s serving notice of demand on a tenant who may be in arrears of rent for a period of more than four months and on the tenant’s failure to tender the rent to the landlord within one month from the service of the notice the tenant is liable to eviction, but in the instant case having regard  to the special facts and circumstances available  on the  record  we  do not find that the  appellant  failed  to tender the 231 rent to the landlords or that he was in arrear for a  period of more than four months. He was all along ready to pay  and since the landlords did not give any reply to his notice dt. 6.9.82  he  was justified in depositing the  arrear  in  the Munsif’s court. Since the deposit was made it must be deemed that  the  appellant had tendered rent to the  landlords  as contemplated by sec. 13(6) of the Act. In this view the High Court as well as the courts below committed error in holding that  the appellant had failed to pay arrears of rent for  a period  of more than four months and on that ground  he  was liable to ejectment from the premises in dispute.     We  should not be understood to have laid down that  the tenant  should deposit rent in court instead of  paying  the same  to the landlord. Primarily a tenant is under  a  legal obligation  to pay rent to the landlord as and when due  and if he fails to pay the same on demand from the landlord  and if he is in arrears for a period of more than four months he would  be  liable to ejectment. Where there  is  a  bonafide dispute  regarding the landlord’s right to receive  rent  on account of there being several claimants or if the  landlord refuses to accept the rent without there being any  justifi- cation  for the same, the tenant would be entitled  to  take proceeding under sec. 30 of the Act and deposit the rent  in court thereupon he would be deemed to have paid the rent  to the  landlord,  consequently  he would be  relieved  of  his liability  of eviction. It does not however follow that  the tenant  is entitled to disregard the landlord or ignore  his

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

demand for payment of rent to him. The provisions of the Act safeguard tenant’s interest but it must be kept in mind that the landlord’s right to receive rent and in the event of the tenant’s being in arrears of rent for a period of more  than four months, his right to ,evict the tenant is preserved. If the  tenant makes the deposit in court without  there  being any  justification for the same or if he refuses to pay  the rent  even on the service of notice of demand by  the  land- lord,  he would be liable to eviction. However the  question whether  the tenant is justified in depositing the  rent  in court  and whether deeming provision of section 30(6)  would be  available,  him  to relieve him from  the  liability  of eviction  would  depend upon facts of each  case.  As  noted earlier on the special facts of the instant case we have  no doubt  in our mind that the appellant had  relieved  himself from the liability of eviction and he was not in arrears  of rent for a period of more than four months.     We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the orders of the  High Court and the subordinate courts and  dismiss  the respondent-landlords’ suit. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. A.P.J.                                                Appeal allowed. 232