Civil Revision No. 332 of 1981. Case: Mahendra Pratap Garg Vs Smt. Vijay Laxami Gengal. High Court of Allahabad (India)
| Case Number | Civil Revision No. 332 of 1981 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: B.D. Agarwala, Sr. Adv., Prakash Krishan and Ravi Kiran Jain, Advs. and For Respondents: S.P. Gupta, Sr. Adv. and S.M. Dayal, Adv. |
| Judges | Satish Chandra, C.J. and K.C. Agarwal, J. |
| Issue | Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 - Sections 20(2), 20(4), 20(6), 30(1); Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1947 - Section 3(1); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 15 Rule 5 |
| Citation | 1982 AWC 731 |
| Judgement Date | September 15, 1982 |
| Court | High Court of Allahabad (India) |
Judgment:
Satish Chandra, C.J.
-
This is a Defendant-tenant's revision. At the hearing of this revision before a learned Single Judge it was submitted on behalf of the tenant-applicant that the deposit made by him under Section 20(4) of the Rent Control Act of 1972 was an unconditional deposit. The court below erred in law in holding to the contrary. The learned Single Judge found some inconsistency between two single Judge decisions of this Court, namely, Ram Kishan v. The District Judge 1976 AWC 763 and Laxmi Narain Sharma v. Arjun Deo Dhawan 1981 ARC 672 on the nature of the deposit being conditional or unconditional. He hence referred this case to a Division Bench.
-
The Plaintiff-opposite party sued for the ejectment of the tenant applicant. She alleged that the Defendant was a tenant of a portion of the accommodation on a monthly rent of Rs. 360/-. He had not paid the rent ever since August 1, 1972. The suit was filed on August 6, 1973 for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and damages.
-
In defence it was pleaded that the agreed rate of rent was Rs. 125/-only and that the Defendant was the tenant of a larger portion than acknowledged by the Plaintiff in the plaint. Many other pleas were taken which are not material or relevant for our purposes.
-
The trial court found that the Defendant was the tenant of the portion of the accommodation as claimed by the Plaintiff and that the agreed rate of rent was Rs. 360/-per month, as alleged by the Plaintiff. The Defendant-tenant had not paid rent since August 1, 1972. Rent was hence due payable from that date at Rs. 360/- per month.
-
The Defendant had, at the first hearing of the suit, deposited the amount of rent and damages etc. as provided by Section 20(4) of the U.P. Rent Control Act of 1972. The deposit was made at the rate of Rs. 360/-per month. The first hearing of the suit on which the deposit was made was October 30, 1973. Few months later, on January 1, 1974 the Defendant filed a written statement to contest the suit in which he took the plea that the rate of rent was not Rs. 360/- per month as claimed by the Plaintiff, but Rs. 125/- per month. It does not appear that the tenant denied non-payment of rent from August 1, 1972. The Court found that the Defendant had, at the first hearing, deposited in court the entire amount due (taking the rate of Rs. 360/- per month), but the deposit was conditional because the Defendant had pleaded that the agreed rent was Rs. 125/- per month only. Section 20(4) required that the deposit of the amount due should be unconditional. Hence the tenant was not entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) by being relieved of his liability to ejectment. In this view, the suit for ejectment was decreed.
-
Lamed counsel for the Defendant-tenant submitted that pleading that the agreed rate of rent was different than that alleged by the Plaintiff, is neither material nor relevant to adjudge if the. deposit was unconditional. In such a situation, the deposit may amount to a deposit under protest, but it does not in law became a conditional deposit.
-
Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff-landlord argued that by pleading a lower rate of rent the Defendant imposed a condition on the deposit that the Defendant does not admit his liability to pay in excess of that admitted by him in the pleadings; the necessary consequence being that any amount deposited in excess of the admitted amount was a deposit with denial of liability. A deposit accompanied by or subjected to a denial of liability is a deposit with a condition imposed on it.
-
In our opinion, the problem as to deposit being conditional or otherwise largely depends upon the statutory provisions. Clause (a) of Section 20(2) provides for a suit for eviction of a tenant on the ground that the tenant is in arrears of rent for not less than...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Civil Misc. Writ No. 10744 of 1981. Case: Smt. Bubboo Devi and Ors. Vs III Addl District Judge and Ors.. High Court of Allahabad (India)
...it was mentioned in the tender that the amount is being deposited 'as alleged' by the Plaintiff. In M.P. Garg v. Smt. Vijay Lakshmi Gengal 1982 AWC 731, the Division Bench of this Court bad an occasion to consider the effect of the term 'unconditional' used in Section 20 Sub-clause (4) of t......
-
Civil Misc. Writ No. 10744 of 1981. Case: Smt. Bubboo Devi and Ors. Vs III Addl District Judge and Ors.. High Court of Allahabad (India)
...it was mentioned in the tender that the amount is being deposited 'as alleged' by the Plaintiff. In M.P. Garg v. Smt. Vijay Lakshmi Gengal 1982 AWC 731, the Division Bench of this Court bad an occasion to consider the effect of the term 'unconditional' used in Section 20 Sub-clause (4) of t......