LexMAIKU versus VILAYAT HUSSAIN THROUGH L.RS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•
461
HAIKll
.
v.
VILAYAT lllJSSAIN TIIROUGH L. Rs.
APRIL 10, 1986
[R.B. MISRA AND M.M. DUTT, JJ.]
United Provinces (Temporary) Control
of
Rent
and
Eviction Rent, 194 7 -
S.
7C -
Rent tendered by tenant -
Landlord refused to accept - Application for permission to
deposit rent in Court - Tenant's allegations about landlord's
refusal to accept rent offered by tenant sufficient to grant
permission -
Eviction suit - Tenant's failure to establish
that landlord refused to accept rent offered by him - Tenant
liable to eviction on ground of default.
Depos;i.t of rent in Court - Service of notice on landlord
- When to be made by Court.
The appellant-tenant neither paid the arrears of rent in
spite of verbal demand, notice of demand, and notice under s.
106 of the Transfer of Property Act, nor vacated the premises.
f" The landlord, therefore, filed a suit'claiming arrears of rent
and damages for the period of default as also pendente lite
and future.
The claim was resisted by the tenant contending that he
was not a. defaulter, that the landlord had refused to accept
the rent tendered by him and that he deposited the same in the
Court under s. 7C of the United Provinces (Temporary) Control
\ of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. The trial Court decreed the
suit holding that the deposit of arrears of rent by the tenant
was not a vdlid deposit and, therefore, it could not absolve
the liability of the tenant from eviction inasDLlch as the
tenant had failed to establish that the landlord had refused
to accept the tender made by him.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
The Additional Civil Judge allowed the appeal by the
tenant and held that he was not a defaulter on account of the
deposit made under s. 7C of the Act.
In the second appeal by the landlord, the High Court set
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
462
SUPREME COURT REPO~TS
(1986] 2 S.C.R.
aside the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court as ~
regards eviction and restored the decree of the trial Court.
In the appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf
of the appellant-tenant: (i) that if the arrears of rent had·
been deposited with permission of the Court under s. 7C of the
Act, it llllSt be presumed that the landlord had refused to
accept
the rent tendered by the tenant; (ii) that as the _j,,
landlord did not raise any objection in the proceedings under
s. 7C he can neither question the validity of the order passed
in those proceedings nor the Court can go into the question of
validity of the deposits made; and (iii) that the First
Appellate Court had recorded a finding of fact believing the'(
statement of the tenant that the landlord had refused to
accept the rent when tendered to him and also refused to-+-
accept the amount sent by money-order and this finding could
not have been set aside by the High Court in second appeal.
Dismissing
the appeal and disposing of the Civil
Miscellaneous Petition,
HELD: l. There is no error, much less a manifest error,
for
interference with' the judgment of
the High Court. ,
(469 D-E]
2. The mere fact that an application under s. 7C for
permission to deposit the arrear of rent has been allowed by
the !bnsif will not absolve the tenant from establishing
before the Court, where the suit for eviction was filed that )"
the landlord had refused to accept the rent lawfully tendered.___)
The tenant llllSt establish before the trial Court the factum of~
refusal by the landlord when the payment was sought to be made'
to him. {469 C-D]
3. Section 7C permits a tenant to deposit the arrears of
rent in Court only under two conditions
(i) when the
landlord refuses to accept any rent lawfully paid to him by
the tenant in respect of any acco111DOdation, and (ii) where any ~
bona fide doubt or dispute has arisen as to the persons who r
were entitled to receive any rent referred to in sub-s. (1) in
respect of any accolllDOdation. If the deposit of arrears of
rent was a valid deposit in accordance with the requirements
of s. 7C certainly it will amount to payment to the landlord
and the tenant will be absolved from the liability of being
•
-·
MAIKU v. VllAYAT HUSSAIN
[ M.ISRA, J. ]
463
evicted. But the Court itself cannot go into the question
whether the landlord had refused to accept the rent paid
lawfully or otherwise. If the M.unsif had only to accept the
application and accord per:nission to the tenant to deposit the
arrears
in Court
merely
on
the
basis
that
necessExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.