KAILASH CHANDRA AND ANR versus MUKUNDI LAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 605 · Decided: 25-01-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

..... 
.. 
KAILASl;I CHANORA AND ANR 
v. 
MUKUNDI LAL AND ORS. 
JANUARY 25, 2002 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.) 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
A 
B 
U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 
1972-Section 20(4), 30-Default in payment of rent-Lease of premises to C 
landlord by Municipal Board-Premises let out to tenants during lease period-
Municipal Board claiming rent from tenants after expiry of lease-Deposit of 
rent in Court under Section 30(2) on ground of doubt about the recipient of 
rent-Suit by landlord for eviction for default in payment of rent-Deposit of 
arrears of rent in Court by tenant under Section 20( 4) before hearing of the D 
suit-Entitlement to adjustment of rent paid under Section 30(2) in view of 
language of Section 20(4)-Held, deposit of rent under Section 30(2) is deemed 
to be payment to landlord and therefore, entitled to benefit of adjustment of 
rent-Hence, no default in payment of rent. 
Interpretation of statutes: 
Harmonious construction-Held, all the related provisions in a statute 
should be read together for proper and harmonious construction. 
Municipal Board leased premises to respondents. The respondents 
E 
let out the premises on rent to appellants during the lease period. In 1971, F 
on expiry of the lease, Municipal Board issued notices demanding rent 
from the appellants. From 1971, the appellants deposited the rent in the 
Court under Section 30(2) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of 
Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 i.e. on the ground of the doubt of 
the recipient of the rent. The respondents filed a suit for eviction of the 
appellants in trial Court on the ground of sub-letting and default in G 
payment of rent from 1973 to -1975. The respondent did not claim the rent 
from the appellants for the period from 1971 to 1973 being time barred. 
The appellants deposited the arrears of rent in the trial Court under 
section 20(4) of the Act before the hearing of the suit. The trial Court 
dismissed the suit of the respondent. Revisional Court passed a decree for H 
605 
606 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] I S.C.R. 
A eviction of the appellants on both the grounds. The appellants filed a Writ 
Petition before High Court. The High Court partly allowed the Writ 
Petition on the question of sub-letting. However it dismissed the petition 
as regards default in payment of rent holding that the amount deposited 
. under Section 30(2) cannot be adjusted by the appellant on a plain reading 
of Section 20(4) of the Act. The High Court further held that such benefit 
B is available only for the deposit made under Section 30(1) of the Act i.e. 
on the ground of refusal by the landlord to accept the rent. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. Reading Section 30(6) of the U.P. Urban Building 
C (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972, it is clear that the 
effect of deposit under two different circumstances provided under 
Sections 30(1) and 30(2) is the same. The deposit is deemed to be payment 
made by the person depositing to the landlord. Omission of Section 30(2) 
in Section 20( 4) of the Act cannot lead to an inference which would negate 
D or nullify the express and statutory effect provided under Section 30(6) 
regarding deposits made under Section 30(2) of the Act Therefore, Section 
20(4) will have to be read with Section 30(6) where it !'elates to deposit of 
rent made under Section 30(2) of the Act. This would not be necessary in 
case of deposits under Section 30(1) of the Act. The plain and natural 
consequences statutorily provided should be allowed to flow irrespective 
E of mention of Section 30(1) alone in Section 20(4) of the Act. 
[611-8-C; E-F) 
1.2. If the amount deposited under Section 30(2) is not deductible 
under Section 20(4) like the deposit made under Section 30(1) and despite 
F the deposit, the tenant is liable to be evicted on the ground of arrears of 
rent, it would render Section 30(2) devoid of meaning and Section 30(6) 
of the Act otiose. Double payment or deposit for the same period is not 
envisaged nor it can be. Hence in construing the meaning of entire amount 
due as occurring in Section 20(4) of the Act, Section 30(6) will have to be 
read along with it and not in isolation. [613-B-CI 
G 
2.1. A provision in the statute is not to be read in isolation. It has to 
be read with other related provisions in the Act itself, more particularly, 
when the subject matter dealt with in different Sec

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