KHADI GRAM UDYOG TRUST versus SHRI RAM CHANDRAJI VIRAJMAN MANDIR SARSAIYA GHAT, KANPUR

Citation: [1978] 2 S.C.R. 249 · Decided: 28-11-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.L. UNTWALIA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

249 
KHADI GRAM UDYOG TRUST 
v. 
SHRI RAM CHANDRAJI VIRAJMAN MANDIR SARSAIYA 
GHAT, KANPUR 
November 28, 1977 
(N. L. UNTWALIA AND P. S. KA.lLASAM, JJ.] 
U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) (U.P. 
A.ct XIll), 1972, sec. 20(4), scope of-Whether the words "entire amount of 
rent '1Ut" occurring in s. 20( 4) would include time-barred rent. 
Section ZO(l) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Lelting, Rent 
and Eviction) Act XIII of 1972 bars institution of a suit for eviction of a tenant 
fr91ll a building, notwithstanding the determination of his tenancy by efflux of 
time or on the expiration· of a notice to quit or in any other manner. Sub-s. 
(2) of s. 20 enables the Landlord to file a suit on any one or more of the 
grounds mentioned in that sub-section. Sub-cl. (a) of sub-s. (2) provides that 
a suit for eviction of a tenant from a building ma.y be insMtuted on the ground 
that the tenant is in arrars of rent for not less than 4 months and has failed 
to pay the same to the landlord within one month from the datre of service upon 
him of a notice of demand. Section 24 provides "In any suit for eviction on 
the ground mentioned in cl (a) of sub-s. 2, if a• the first hearing of the suit 
ihe tenant unconditionally pays or tenders to the landlord or deposits in court 
the entire amount of rent and damages for use and occup~tion of the building 
due from him together with interest thereon at the rate of 9 per cent per annum 
and the landlord's costs of ihe suit in respect thereof after deducting any amount 
already deposited by the tenant U'nder sub-s. (1) of s. 30, the court may in lieu 
of passing a decree for eviction on that ground pass an order relieving the 
tenant against his liability for eviction on that ground" thus, 
giving another 
opportunity for payment of rent to the tenant!. 
The respondent, owner of premises. No. 49/4 Gmeral Ganj, Kanpur, served 
a notice on the appelian•- who was a tenant of a shop in the premises on a 
monthly rent of Rs. 200/- from 1958 dem&nding payment of arrears of rent as 
well as to quit the premises. Several notices were .also served earlier on the 
appellant and he failed to pay the rent within one month from the date of the 
service of the notice of demand on him. The loot notice was served on 9th 
of July 1973. Subsequently, the respondent filed a suit No. OS 5/73 before 
A 
• 
B 
c 
D 
E 
tihe Di8trict Judge, Kanpur relinquishing his claim for rent for the 
period 
F 
1-1-1963 to 31-12-1970 as the relief was time-barred. On the appellant's pay-
ing the rent for the period from 1-1-1971'to 30-4-1973, the respondent restricted 
his claim for the period 1-5-1973 to 8-8-1973 for Rs. 3200/- as damages and 
Rs. 322.93 as water lax alleging to be a.1ready due and: Rs 50/- as water tax 
tentatively due pendente lite and future water tax antd also for ejectment of the 
appellant/defendant from the suit premises. The appellant filed 
the written 
statement stating that he had paid the entire amount due; that he was not a 
defaulter as the reont for the period 1-1-1963 to 31-12-1970 was barred by 
time and was, therefore, not liable to be evicted from the suit premises u/s. 
G 
24. The appellant also depO'lited a sum of Rs. 5972.43 in the court being the 
amount of rent and damages for the period 1-5-1973 to 28-2 1975 together 
with interest, costs etc. as required by s. 24 of the U.P Act of 1972. The suit 
"''hich was transferred to the court of sixth Additional Distric• Judge was 
decreed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff on 11-11-1975 and the appellant/ 
• 
defendant was directed to vacate the suit premises. The entire amount deposited 
by the appellant/defendanl in the court u/s. 20(4) of the Act was ordered to 
be paid to the respondent/plaintiff. The District Judge was of the view that 
the t<nant ought to have dellOSited the lime-barred arrears of rent also in order 
H 
to claim benefit ri/s. 24. The Trial Court found that the landlord had proved 
that tenanti was in arrears of rent for not less than 4 mrnths and had failed 
to pay the s~e to the landlord within one month from the date of service 
zso 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1978] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
upon him of a notice of demand and, as such, satisfied the requirement of 
sub-s. 2 of s. 20 and is entitiled for order of eviction. The appellant filed a 
revision petition u/s. 25 of the Sma11 Causes Court Act in the High Court of 
Allahabad which was dismissed. 
c 
Disn1issing the appeal by spec
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.