FAKIR MOHD. (DEAD) BY LRS. versus SITA RAM

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 575 · Decided: 10-12-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

FAKIR MOHD. (DEAD) BY LRS. 
v. 
SITA RAM 
DECEMBER 10, 2001 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
Rent and Eviction : 
Rajas!han Premises (Control Qf Rent and Evie/ion) Act, 1950: 
Sections 13 and 19A: 
Eviction of tenant-De.fault in payment of rent-Validity of deposit of rent 
in Court under Clause (c)-Clauses (a) and (b) Qf sub-section (3) of Section 19 
are separated by the word 'or' which is disjunctive-When payment in person 
A 
B 
c 
or by postal money order is refused or landlord fails to comply with tenants 
D 
notice under clause (b) in either case tenant is entitled to deposit rent in the 
Court. 
Section 19-A(J)(b)-Service of Notice to landlord to specify Bank Ac-
count Number for depositing rent-Jn the absence of provision on mode of 
service most common and usual mode of sending notice by registered post 
should be .followed-When tenant has failed to sent the notice by Registered 
post, presumption under Section 1141.f) could not be drawn. 
Eviction Act, 1872 : 
Section 114 : 
Presumption drawn under is pennissive-On .facts and circumstances of 
given case Court may re.fuse to draw such presumption-Notice sent under 
certificate Qfposting-Onfacts, presumption as to service re.fused to be drawn. 
Words and Phrases : 
'or' and 'and'-Meaning of. in the context of Section 19 of the Rajasthan 
premises (Control Qf Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950: 
E 
F 
G 
The appellant-tenant was in occupation of a portion of the premises 
H 
575 
576 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
owned by respondent-landlord. Earlier a suit was filed for eviction of the 
tenant for his failure to pay or tender the rent. It was dismissed as the 
tenant had deposited the rent and was thus protected under Section 13(4) 
and 13(6) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, · 
1950. The tenant again fell into arrears of rent for a certain period. The 
B 
landlord filed a suit under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act on the ground of 
second default. The tenant deposited the rent in the Court as per provision 
under Section 19A of the Act. The Trial Court held the deposits to be valid 
deposits under Section 19 A and dismissed the suit. First Appellate Court 
reversed the decision of the Trial Court and decreed the suit by holding 
c 
that the deposits not to be valid deposits. High Court dismissed the appeal 
preferred by the tenant and upheld the decree of eviction passed by the 
Appellate Court. Hence this appeal. 
It was contended for the appellant-tenant that as the landlord was 
avoiding to accept the amount of rent tendered by him then a notice to the 
D 
landlord had been issued through his local counsel calling upon him to 
disclose the Bank Account Number and nature of bank account to enable 
him to deposit the amount of rent in the landlord's account. Since landlord 
gave no response to the notice, the rent amount was deposited in the Court 
as per the provisions under Section 19·A(3)(c) of the Act, which shall be 
E 
F 
deemed to be a payment made to landlord under Section 19A(4) of the Act. 
It was contended for the respondent-landlord that the tenant must 
comply with requirement of both the Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 19·A(3) 
followed by landlord's failure to respond, whereupon only a right to make 
a deposit under Clauses (c) of Section 19-A(3) accrues to the tenant and 
deposit will be a valid deposit and Section 19-A( 4) shall come into play. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. Section 19-A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent 
and Eviction) Act, 1950 is intended to lake care of recalcitrant tenants who 
G 
either do not pay the rent when due or raise false pleas of payment or tender 
so as to harass the landlord and indulge in litigation by raising frivolous 
pleas much to the chagrin of landlord, sub-section (3) lakes care of a situa-
tion where there may be a controversy as to whether the tenant fulfilled his 
obligation to make payment, apart from personal payment or rent by the 
H 
tenant, two other methods are prescribed for payment or tender of rent -
FAKIR MOHD. v. SITA RAM 
577 
available to be utilized at the options of the tenant. To this extent there ap· 
A 
pears to be uo ambiguity in the language employed by the legislature in as 
much as clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (3) are separated by the use of 
word 'or'. Controversy arises on the interpretation of clause (c) wherein the 
" 
claµse contemplating remittance of rent by postal money order and the clause 
re

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