ACHAL MISHRA versus RAMA SHANKAR SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 617 · Decided: 01-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

ACHAL MISHRA 
v. 
RAMA SHANKAR SINGH AND ORS. 
MAY I, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA, T ARUN CHATTERJEE AND 
P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
Rent Control: 
A 
B 
Clarificatory order-Tenant directed by Supreme Court to deposit Rs. C 
3 lakhs towards arrears of rent as a condition precedent to pursue his writ 
petition in High Court-Tenant prayed for clarification of that direction on 
ground that while passing such direction the Court did not specifically 
notice the fact that on an earlier direction the tenant had already paid 
Rs.1.46 lakhs to the landlord-Held: Clarification cannot automatically D 
follow merely for the reason that the factum of payment of Rs./.46 Lakhs was 
not specifically referred to by the Court-Constitution of India, 1950-
Article 136. 
This Court vide an order dated 11-4-2005 directed the tenant to deposit 
Rs.3,00,000/- towards the arrears of rent as a condition precedent for enabling E 
him to pursue his writ petition in the High Court. 
The tenant filed an application praying for clarification of that direction 
on ground that while passing such direction the Court did not specifically 
notice the fact that on an earlier direction of this Court the tenant had already 
paid on 5-7-2004 a sum of Rs.1,45,860/- to the landlord. He contended that F 
the said deposit of Rs.1,45,860/- should be deducted from the sum of 
Rs.3,00,000/- thereby reducing the amount to be deposited to Rs.1,54,140/-. 
Disposing of the application, the Court 
HELD: 1. A substantial building in an important part of the town was G 
being held by the tenant all these years without paying or tendering the rent 
that was payable. In the Judgment it has been noticed that the building would 
have fetched a substantial rent considering its nature and location. The fact 
that no rent had been tendered for a period of 26 years had also been noticed. 
617 
H 
618 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A The further fact that the landlord was not pegged down to the standard rent 
which itself remained to be fixed, was also noticed. As indicated, the only peg 
on which the tenant seeks to hang his case, is the fact that in the order, the 
tendering and acceptance of the sum on 5. 7.2004 has not been specifically 
noticed. Strictly speaking, this is not a case where a clarification should 
B automatically follow merely for the reason that the factum of payment of the 
sum in question was not specifically referred to in the judgment of this court. 
1622-C-EI 
2.1. At the same time, the amount has been directed to be deposited as 
a condition precedent for the tenant to get a hearing in his writ petition. 
C Taking notice of that fact, it is proper to give some concession to the tenant, 
in respect of the amount to be deposited towards the rent/damages that may 
become ultimately payable. According to the tenant, the amount to be tendered 
to make up the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- is only Rs.1,54,140/-. In the 
circumstances, taking stock of the situation as a whole, it would be appropriate 
to modify the direction for payment by the tenant, by fixing a sum of 
D Rs.2,00,000/- in the place of Rs.3,00,000/-.1622-F-Hl 
2.2. It is directed that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- should be paid by the 
tenant within a period of one month, failing which he would lose the right to 
pursue the writ petition he has already filed in the High Court, as indicated 
in the original Judgment. If he had made any payment after the date of the 
E judgment, towards the sum directed to be paid, the sum paid would be given 
credit to and the tenant will be liable to pay only the balance within the time 
fixed, to make up the sum of rupees two lakhs. 1623-A-Bl 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : I.A. No. 7 of2005. 
IN 
Civil Appeal No. 3322 of 1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.1.1997 of the High Court of 
Allahabad at Lucknow Bench in W.P. No. 803/1979. 
G 
Manoj Swarup, Lalita Kohli, Mona Rajvanshi and Anubhav Kumar for 
Manoj Swarup & Co. for the Appellant. 
Sunil Kumar Jain, S. Borthakur, Manish Kumar and B. Barooah for the 
Respondents. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
AC HAL MISHRA v. RAMA SHAN KAR SINGH [P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.] 
6 J 9 
P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. I. This application is filed by the A 
respondents in the above appeal praying for a clarification of the order dated 
11.4.2005. It is prayed that the order be clarified as regards the amount to be 
paid towards arrears of rent after taking note of the sums earlier paid by them. 
This Court
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.