BHOJA @ BHOJA RAM GUPTA versus RAMESHWAR AGARWALA AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] 2 S.C.R. 369 · Decided: 16-03-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

BHOJA @ BHOJA RAM GUPTA 
A 
v. 
RAMESHWAR AGARWALA AND ORS. 
MARCH 16, 1993 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND DR. A.S. ANAND, JJ.] 
B 
. Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act: 
Section 4-Rent-Enhancement of-Procedur,.,-..Excess rent paid by 
tenant whether could be automatically adjusted against subsequent defaults C 
in payment of monthly rent. 
The defendant-appellant was a tenant under the plaintiff-landlord 
· on a monthly rent of Rs.70. The appellant defaulted in the payment of the 
rent of the suit-premises - residential-cum-shop ·premises -with effect from 
October, 1975 to June, 1976. 
D 
As the appellant did not vacate the premises even after being served 
with a notice under section 106. Transfer of Property Act, a suit was filed 
for his eviction from the suit premises, being a defaulter. The landlord 
also pleaded his own bona fide requirement of the suit-premises. 
E 
The appellant-tenant submitted that he was originally a tena!'t 
under one Smt. Sita Devi, the owner of the suit premises at a monthly rent 
of Rs.55; that he was paying the rent to Smt. Sita Devi and after the 
plaintiff - landlord purchased the house from her in 1968, he continued as 
tenant of plaintiff; that the plaintiff illegally increased the rent from Rs.55 
F 
to Rs.65 per month (and not Rs. 70 per month.) under threat of eviction; 
that tenant paid the rent at the rate of Rs. 65 per month upto the month 
commencing from 16.1.1976, when the plaintiff-landlord refused to accept 
the same with effect from 16.2.1976; that defendant-tenant did not default 
in payment of rent as subsequently rent had been sent by Money Order; G 
that the landlord-plaintiff did not have any bona fide necessity for the 
premises and that the suit was not maintainable . 
. The Trial Court held that the suit was maintainable, the plaintiff 
had cause of action for the suit and tenancy of the defendant was validly 
terminated. It also held that the defendant-tenant was a defaulter and was H 
369 
. , 
370 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1993] 2 S.C.R 
A liable to be evicted from the primises. It however held that the plaintiff 
had failed to prove his case regarding bona fide requirement of the suit 
premises. The Trial Court however held that the plaintiff-landlord could 
not have enhanced the rent without taking recourse to the provisions of 
Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act and therefore the 
B Court calculated the arrears of rent at Rs.SS per month. 
The Trial Court decreed the suit partly and directed the defendant-
tenant to vacate the suit premises and to deliver the vacant possession of the 
same to the plaintiff-landlord within 90 days from the date of the decree. 
Tenant-appellant filed a First Appeal against the Trial Court's 
C judgment. Plaintiff-landlord also filed cross-objections challenging the 
linding of the Trial Court regarding determination of the r.tte of rent and 
the arrears of rent. The First Appellate Court dismissed the Cross-objec· 
tions and conlirmed the linding of the Trial Court to the effect that the 
rent lawfully payable was Rs. SS per f!10nth. It held that the defendant-
D tenant was a defaulter with effect from 16.S.1976 onwards and he was 
liable to be evicted and dismissed the appeal of the tenant . 
E 
The Second Appeal filed by the appellant-tenant was dismissed by 
the High c.ourt in limine, ag-dinst which by special leave the present appeal 
was filed .in this Court. 
The appellant contended that since the rent lawfully payable per 
month was Rs. SS per month and not Rs. 6S which was paid by the 
appellant, the excess amount paid should be adjusted, there could be no 
quotation of holding appellant a defaulter. (This ple11 of appellant was 
F 
rejected by the First Appellaie Court on the ground that no pr.tyer for 
·adjnstnien~ in writing was made by him.) 
The "respondent-landlord submitted that the excess rent paid by the 
tenant to his landlord in pursuance of a mutually agreed illegal enhance-
ment, could not get automatically adjusted against the subsequent 
· G defaults in the payment of monthly rent. 
Dismissing the appeal of the tenant, this Court, 
HELD: 1.01. Section 4 of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and 
Eviction)· Control Act creates an absolute prohibiton against illegal in-
H crease or enhacement of rent except in the manner provided by tbe 
,.._ 
BHOJA RAM GUPTA v. RAMESHWAR AGARWALA 
371 
provisions of the Act itself and lays down that it is not even permissible A 
for the par

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