BANARSI LAL versus SMT. SAGHIRAN BEGUM

Citation: [1988] 3 S.C.R. 820 · Decided: 03-05-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
BANARSI LAL 
v. 
SMT. SAGHIRAN BEGUM 
MAY 3, 1988 
[R.S. PATHAK, CJ, M.H. KANIA AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.] 
Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 
1972-Sections 39 and 40-Tenant making deposit and claiming enti-
tlement to be absolved from liability for eviction-Amount deposited to 
include costs of suit-Costs are taxable costs made payable by tenant to 
landlord. 
In a suit for ejectment filed by the landlord respondent a decree 
for eviction from a shop was passed against the tenant-appellant on 19th 
August, 1971. The Trial Court however directed the parties to bear 
their own costs. During the pendency of the tenant's appeal, the U.P. 
Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 
was enforced with effect from 15th July, 1972. The appe!lant made the 
deposit contemplated 'by section 39 read with section 40 of the Act 
within one month in the lower appellate court and asserted that in view 
of the deposit so made he was entitled to be absolved from his liability 
for eviction. The deposit, however, did not include the costs of the suit. 
The landlord contested the tenant's claim on the ground that since 
the costs of the suit had not been deposited within time, the tenant was 
not entitled to the benefit of section 39 read with section 40. In defence, 
the tenant urged that since the trial Court had directed the parties to 
bear their own costs the benefit of the aforesaid sections could not be 
F 
denied to him. In the alternative, it was asserted that. the delay in the 
deposit of costs was liable to be condoned. These contentions did not find 
favour with the lower appellate court and it dismissed the appeal with 
costs. The tenant's second appeal was also dismissed by the High Court. 
The High Court held that the costs of the suit had to be deposited 
notwithstanding the fact that the trial court had directed the parties to 
G 
bear their own costs. According to the High Court, the words 'land-
lord's full costs of the suit' were not the same thing as the costs awarded 
to the plaintiff in a suit but really meant all those taxable costs which 
were capable of being ascertained on the date of the deposit. In this 
Court the appellant reiterated the pleas raised in the cou.rts below. 
H 
Allowing the appeal, it was, 
820 
•
BANARSI LAL v. SAGHIRAN BEGUM 
821 
HELD: (I) Irrespective of the actual amount of costs that may 
A 
have been incurred by the landlord in prosecuting a suit, he is entitled 
to recover. from the tenant only such costs which in law are known as 
taxable costs and are made payable to tbelandlord. [824E] 
(2) Non-deposit of such costs which, either on account of the 
relevant rules or some specific order of the court are not payable by the 
tenant to the landlord on the date of deposit contemplated by section 39 
or 40, cannot deprive the tenant of the benefit of these two sections. The 
fact that in appeal there was a possibility of costs of the suit also being 
awarded to the landlord by reversing the decree of the trial court in this 
behalf will not be material. [824H; 825AI 
B 
c 
(3) In cases falling under this category, the appellate or revisional 
court in order to safeguard the interests of the landlord and to give 
effect to the intention of the legislature expressed in section 39 read 
with section 40 of the Act, will require the tenant to deposit such costs 
also in supersession of the decree or order of the subordinate court in 
this behalf before passing an order giving him the benefit of these 
D · 
sections. [825E] 
(4) The appellant was entitled to the benefit of section 39 read 
with Section 40 of the Act and to be absolved from his liability to be 
evicted from the shop in question. [826G-H] 
Krishna Kumar Gupta v. Additional District Judge IV, [19871 2 
S.C.R. 638; R.D. Ram Nath & Co. v. Girdhari Lal, [1975] A.L.J. I 
and Smt. Phoolwati v. Gyan Chand Verma, [1985] All L.J. 1, referred 
to. 
E 
---C. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5858 
F 
of 1983. 
· 
From the Judgment" and Order dated 5.5.83 of the Allahabad 
High Court of in S.A. No. 1281of74. 
G 
S.K. Bisaria, A.P. Malhotra, J.K. Nayyar and R.S. Sharma for 
the Appellant. 
Shakil Ahmed Syed for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
A 
B 
c 
822 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] 3 S.C.R. 
OJHA, J. This is '1 tenant's appeal by special leave against the 
judgment of the Allahabad High Court dismissing his second appeal 
arisin

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.