KAMESHWAR SINGH SRIVASTAVA versus IV ADDL. DIST. JUDGE LUCKNOW & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 1 S.C.R. 224 · Decided: 14-11-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
KAMESHWAR SINGH SRIVASTAVA' 
v. 
IV ADDL. DIST. JUDGE LUCKNOW & ORS. 
NOVEMBER l.J, !986 
[SABY ASACHI MUKHARJI AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] 
U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) 
Act, l972-Sections 20 & 30-Bonafide dispute as regards landlord's 
right to receive rent-Landlord refusing to accept rent without justifi· 
cation-Tenant entitled to initiate proceedings to deposit rent in Court. 
J" 
On the d•ath of the owner, landlord of the tenanted premises, his 
' 
heirs respondents, Nos. 3 to 12 became the owners. The appellant-
tenant tendered· rent to respondent No. 3 hut he did not accept the 
same. The appellant made application before the Munsif under s. 30( 1) 
of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) 
D Act, 1972, who permitted deposit of the rent and since then the appel· 
lant had been depositing rent in the Munsirs Court. The respondent-
landlords served a notice on the appellant calling upon him to vacate the 
premises, hand over possession and pay the arrears of rents from 
18.10.1979 to 17.9.1982. In his reply the appellant stated that he was 
ready and willing to pay the rent, and if respondent No. 3 was willing to 
E accept the rent he may inform him within reasonable time so that he 
may pay the same to him otherwise he would deposit the rent in the 
Munsirs Court. The respondent-landlords did not give any reply to the 
appellant instead they filed suit for his eviction. Meanwhile the appel-
lant deposited the entire amount of arrears in Munsirs Court. 
J
I
F 
The Judge, Small Causes Court, decreed the suit holding that the 
appellant had committed default for a period of four months from the /) 
date of suit. The revision filed hy the appellant was dismissed by the ' 
; 
District Judge. The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant 
\ 
under Article 226 holding that the appellant had failed to tender arrears 
of rent within one month from the date of service of notice on him and, 
G 
therefore, he was liable to ejectment. 
H 
In appeal to this Court on behalf of the appellant-tenant it was 
urged, that the courts below failed to appreciate, that the appellant had 
all along been ready and willing to pay the rent to the landlords and in 
the reply to the notice he had offered to pay rent on hearing from 
respodent No. 3 but since the appellant did not receive any reply, he 
A 
'· 
>-· 
I 
K.S. SRIVASTAVA v. IV ADDL. DIST. JUDGE 
225 
deposited the rent in Munsif's Court under s. 30 and, therefore, be was 
not liable to ejectment. On Iiehalf of the respondent-landlords it was 
urged that all the three Courts have recorded findings holding the . 
appellant in arrears of rent for a period of more than four months on 
the date of the snit, therefore, the impugned orders do not suffer from 
any illegality warranting inte'rference by this Court. 
Allowing the appeal of the appellant-tenant, 
HELD: !. The High Court as well as the Courts below. have 
taken a too technical view in holding the appellant guilty of wilful 
default in payment of rent. [230B] 
2. The High Court as well as the Courts below have committed error in 
holding that the appellant had failed to pay arrears of rent, for a period 
of more than four months and on that ground he was liable to ejectment 
from the premises in dispute. [23!8] 
3. On landlord's serving notice of demand on a tenant who may 
be in arrears of rent for a period of more than four months, and on the 
tenant's failure to tender the rent to the landlord within one month 
from the service of the notice, the tenant is liable to eviction, but in the 
instant case, having regard to the special facts and circumstances avail-
able on the record it cannot be said that the appellant failed to tender 
lhe rent to the landlords or that he was in arrear for a period of more 
than four months. He was all along aready to pay and since the landlord 
did not give any reply to his notice, he was justified in depositing the 
arrears in the Munsif's Court. Since the deposit was made it must be 
deemed that the appellant had tendered rent to the landlords as contem-
plated bys. 13(6) of the Act. [230H-231B] 
4. The question whether the tenant is justified in depositing the 
rent in Court and whether the deeming provision of s. 30(6) would be 
applicable to. relieve him from the liability of eviction would depend 
upon facts of each case. The llppellant, in the instant case, had relieved 
himself from the liability of eviction

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