LADU RAM versus GANESH LAL

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 390 · Decided: 12-08-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
LADU RAM 
v. 
GANESH LAL 
AUGUST 12, 1999 
B 
[V.N. KHARE AND S.S. MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction : 
Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950-Sections 
· C 13(J)(a), (3) & (4). 
Suit for eviction-Default in payment of rent-Landlord not seeking 
. ·any relief for recovery of arrears of rent-Held, absence of such relief does 
not preclude the court in determining provisional rent or decreeing the 
suit-Code of Civil Procedure-Order 2 Rule 2. 
Decree of eviction-Obtaining of-landlord to plead and prove-
Tenant in arrears of rent-Arrears of rent due for more than six months-
Tenant failed to pay arrears of rent to the landlord 
· ·The appellant filed a suit for eviction under sections 13(1)(a), (3) and 
E (4) of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 against 
the respondent on the ground of default in payment of rent. The appellant did 
not seek the relief of recovery of arrears of rent. It was stated in the plaint 
that rent was due since December, 1993. The trial court assessed the 
provisional rent under Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of 
F Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 which was to be paid to the appellant or 
deposited in court by the respondent. The respondent ~hallenged the order 
before the appellate court but the same was dismissed. The respondent filed 
a revision petition before the High Court. The High Court allowing the 
petition held that as the appellant had not sought the relief of recovery of 
arrears of rent in the suit for eviction, the trial court was not right in 
G determining provisional rent due from the respondent. 
In this appeal challenging the aforesaid order the appellant stated that 
the High Court erred in holding that since the averments of default in 
payment of rent was not substantiated by the appellant by asking relief of 
recovery of arrears of rent; and that the court could not determine the 
I-I 
390 
LADU RAM v. GANESH LAL 
391 
provisional rent to be deposited by the respondent under Section 13(3) of the A 
Act. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD 1.1. A landlord is not required, in a suit for eviction based on 
defaultjn payment of rent, to seek an additional relief for recovery of arrears B 
of rent Even without such a relief a decree for eviction against a tenant can 
be passed by the court. [394-F] 
1.2. In a suit for eviction based on the ground of Section 13 (l)(a) of 
the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, the landlord must allege and prove three 
requirements, namely, (i) the tenant is in arrears of rent, (ii) such arrears C 
of rent were due for more than six months and (iii) the tenant has failed to 
pay such arrears of rent to the landlord. Excepting these requirements there 
is no other requirement of law which a landlord is to plead and prove for 
obtaining decree of eviction. [394-D-E] 
2.1. Under order 2 sub-rule (2) of Code of Civil Procedure, where a D 
plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes any portion 
of his claim, he is debarred afterwards to sue in respect of the portion so 
omitted or relinquished. The only effect of absence of relief for recovery of 
arrears of rent in a suit is that the plaintiff cannot subsequently file a suit 
for recovery of arrears of rent for which he omits to sue in a suit for eviction 
based on default in payment of rent. Applying the said principle it does not E 
stand to reason why a suit simplicitor for eviction on the ground set forth 
in Section 13(1)(a) of the Act is not maintainable in absence of relief for 
recovery of arrears of rent. [394-F-G-H) 
2.2. A perusal of Sections 13 (3), (4), (5) and (6) shows that the relief F 
for ejectment on the ground of default can be granted if it is found by the 
court that the tenant was in arrears of rent under section 13(1) (a) of the 
Act and the tenant has further failed to comply with the provisions of Section 
13 (3) & (4) of the Act. Thus in a suit for ejectment ofa tenant on the ground 
set forth in Section 13 (1) (a) of the Act, the court is required to provisionally 
determine the amount of rent which a tenant is required to deposit in order G 
l 
to escape from the decree of eviction even if no relief is prayed for, for 
recovery of arrears of rent. In case the rent is deposited, the landlord is 
entitled to get the arrears of rent as the tenant had relieved himself of the 
decree of eviction. (395-C-D) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 539 of 1998. H 
392 
SUP

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