LexBRAHMANAND versus SMT. KAUSHALYA DEVI & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
BRAHMAN AND v. SMT. KAUSHALYA DEVI & ANR. April 11, 1977 485 [V. R. KRISHNA IYER, R. S. SARKARIA AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.J A Eviction on the ground of arrears of rent-Tenant due to strained relations B deposits r,ent in the Court-Whether such deposit shall be deemed that the rent has been duly paid-United Provirices' (Temporary) Control of Rent and Evie~ tion Act 1947. S. 3(l)(a) rlw. s. 7-C(v) and (6) interpretation of. Section 3(1)(a) of the United Provinces (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, permits ejectment on the ground of arrears of rent when the tenant is in arrears of rent for more than three months and has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month of the service upon him: of a notice of demand. Section 7-C(l) enables deposits of rent to be made when a landlord C refuses to accept 'any rent lawfully paid to him by a tenant ands. 7·C(6) enjoins that "in any case where a deposit has been made as aforesaid, it shall be deemed that the rent has been duly paid by the tenant to th.e landlord." The appellant·tenant had extremely strained relations with his landlady leading to criminal cases. He deposited the rent payable by him in the court regularly. The triaJ court as well as the High Court, taking the view that such prompt deposits of rent in the court did not satisfy the provisions of s. 3(1) (a) D of the United Provinces (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, since it is not equivalent to payment of rent to the landlord, granted the ejection application· filed by the resvondent·landlady. Allowing the appeal by special leave and remanding the case, the court, HELD: (1) The construction put by the courts below on s. 7·C is too narrow and a liberal construction of the.expression "paid to him by a tenant" ins. 7·C (I) is necessary. [ 487 B-D) E (2) A correct interpretation of s. 7 has to be conditioned by the circums· tances prevailing between the parties. In a situation where not merely bitterness and friction but potentially violent terms mar the life of the parties, s. 7.c of the Act has to be read realistically, It is not necessary for the tenant to create a situation of tension and violence by physically giving the rent into the hands of the landlord. It is an idle ritual to insist on: a physical tender of payment of rent where the circumstances make it impracticable. But harassing the landlOrd by straightaway depositing the rent in court without fulfilment of the conditions F required by s. 7-0(1) is also unwarranted. [486 G-H, 487 A, DJ (3) The expression "where the deposit has been made as aforesaid" ins. 7·C (6) means that the deposit is permissible only when the condition in s. 7·C(l) is complied with. If the landlord refuses to accept rent paid to him a deposit jg permissible but payment need not be by physical tender person to person. It can be by money order or through messenger or by sending a notice to the landlord asking him to noniinate_ a bank into which the refits may be regularly paid to the credit of the lllI!dlord.· If the landlord refuses under these circutn- G stances then a court deposit will be the remedy. In the instant case the courts below have not considered whether the circumstances which drove the appellant into the depos·iting of rent in court were such as eliminated the other possibilities of direct payment. [487 E-F, AJ Observation Jt wauld be a far more Sati~f~ctory s_olution of the situation between ~wo ne_ighQours who have fallen out, if the parties would come to ·terms at the ·gentle suggestion of :the conrt below as to w)lat it considers just aided b)'. !he activist H endeavoilrs of counsel, fhan -a niere adjudication of the pdints of fact and law riii.00 Which will leave the pat'ties as bitter neighbours. [The court dirocied the al'POllate court to take the initiative in the matter With a caution to be 1otal!y non-aligned in the process.] [488 A-BJ A 486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1977] 3 S.C.R. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDCTION : Civil Appeal No. 711 of 1976. (Appea'l by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 28-4-1976 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 1719 of 1972) Yogeshwar Prasad, Miss Rani Arora and Meera Bali, for the B appellant. c D E F G It S. L. Bhatia a1nd H. K. Puri, for respondent No. 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J. The defendant-tenant is the appellant and the appeal is by special leav
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.