LexKULDEEP SINGH versus GANPAT LAL AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
KULDEEP SINGH v. GANP AT LAL AND ANR. NOVEMBER 24, 1995 [S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] Rajasthan Premises (Contract of Rent & Eviction) Act, 195(}-Section 19A (3) and (4)-Tendering of Rent in Court-Validity of-When can be resorted to--Tenant depositing rent in Court on refusal of landlord to issue rent receipt-If a valid tender. Rajasthan Premises (Contract of Rent & Eviction) Act, 195(}-Section 19A(l)-Cause of action-When arises. A B c Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-0rder 7 Rule 1 (e)-Narration of particulars about facts constituting the cause of action-Purpose of-Error in D indicating the correct date on which cause of action arose-Effect of. The respondents filed an eviction suit against the appellant-tenant under the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Contract of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 claiming that the appellant has defaulted in payment E of rent due from him for six months. Under section 13(1) (a) of the Rajasthan Premises (Contract of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 a tenant was liable to be evicted if he neither paid nor tendered the amount of rent due for six months. Section 13(6) atlo~ded protection to the tenant from eviction if the tenant deposited in Court or F paid to the landlord the amount determined by the Court. If the tenant, having obtained the benefit of Section 13(6), again defaulted in payment of rent for six months, the protection under Section 13(6) was not available to him. Under Section 19-A(3)(c) of the Act, (a) if the rent remitted by the tenant by postal money order was received back under the postal endor- sement of refusal or unfound or (b) if the landlord failed to specify the G bank account number in which rent may be deposited after receiving notice in writing or (c) where there was a bona fide doubt as to the person to whom rent is payable, the tenant could deposit the rent with the Court. Ry Section 19-A(4), a legal fiction was created and the tenant was deemed to have paid or tendered the amount of rent due from him if the rent was H 655 656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A deposited or tendered in accordance with sub-clause (3) of Section 19-A. The appellant, after having obtained protection of Section 13(6) of the Rajasthan Premises (Contract of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 again defaulted in payment of rent from May 1, 1982. The appellant claimed that he had paid the rent from May 1982 to September 1982 to the respondents B but the respondents refused to give him any receipt and instead, returned the amount of rent in October, 1982. Thereafter, the appellant alleges that he submitted an application under section 19-A of the Act of 1950 and deposited the rent for the months May, 1982 to October, 1982 with the Court on October 29, 1982. c On December 20, 1982 the respondents filed a second suftfor evic- tion claiming that the appellant had defaulted in payment of rent for the second time from May 1982 to December 1982 and was liable for eviction. In para 6 of the plaint, the respondents indicated that the cause of action arose on November 1, 1982 when the rent of six months became outstand- D ing. The Trial Court dismissed the second suit of the respondents on the ground that after depositing the rent with the Court on October 29, 1982 the appellant cannot be held to be a defaulter. On appeal, setting aside the E order of Trial Court a Single Judge of the High Court held that the deposit in Court was not a valid deposit as the appellant had not followed the procedure laid down in Section 19-A(3). The Single Judge also rejected the contention of the appellant that the rent for the month of October 1982 had not become due on November 1, 1982 and cause of action had not arisen on November 1, 1982. The special appeal filed by the appellant F against the order of the Single Judge was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. G Dismissing the appeal against the order of the Division Bench, this Court HELD : 1.1. It is no doubt true that in view of Sub- section (1) of Section 19-A of the Rajasthan Premises (Contract of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 since there was no contract prescribing the date for payment of rent, the appellant could pay the rent for the month of October, 1982 till Novem· her 15, 1982 and the cause of action for filing a.suit on the ground of default H for the payment of rent for the months of May, 1982 to October, 198~ could KULDEEPSINGHv. GANPATLAL 657 arise only
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.