LexMAN SINGH versus SHAMIM AHMED (DEAD) THR. LRS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 301 [2023] 3 S.C.R. 301 301 MAN SINGH v. SHAMIM AHMED (DEAD) THR. LRS (Civil Appeal No. 1874 of 2015) APRIL 05, 2023 [ANIRUDDHA BOSE AND SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.] Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972: ss.20, 30 – Deposit of rent in court – When – Held: Tenant can only deposit rent in the court, as long as the landlord has refused to accept the rent – Once the landlord expresses his willingness to accept the rent, the tenant has no option but to deposit the rent to the landlord – Section 30 gives an opportunity to the tenant to deposit the admitted rent in Court, but this arrangement lasts only till the landlord expresses his willingness to receive the rent directly – On facts, rent of the premises enhanced to Rs.250/- per month, however, further enhancement to Rs.300/- denied by tenant – On refusal of the landlord to receive the rent, the tenant constrained to deposit the monthly rent of Rs. 250/- per month in the court – Thereafter, notice of demand for rent sent by landlord to tenant but rent not deposited to landlord within the stipulated period – Landlord then filed a suit for arrears of rent and eviction before the trial court – Decree of eviction and recovery of rent passed against the tenant holding that the rent was Rs.300/- pm and not Rs. 250/- pm – Finding of lower courts about enhanced rent set aside by High Court as oral agreement between parties not proved, however it upheld the decree of eviction – By serving notice the landlord expressed his willingness to accept the rent, the tenant had no option but to deposit the rent to the landlord – However, this was not been done by the tenant – Thus, the order passed by the High Court is upheld. Gokaran Singh v. Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hardoi and Ors. 2000 SCC OnLine All 174 – referred to. Ajai Agarwal and Ors. v. Har Govind Prasad Singhal and Ors. (2005) 13 SCC 145 : [2005] 5 Suppl. SCR 21 – Distinguished. A B C D E F G H 302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 3 S.C.R. Case Law Reference [2005] 5 Suppl. SCR 21 distinguished Para 13, 14 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.1874 of 2015. From the Judgment and Order dated 17.02.2012 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in CMWP No. 38925 of 2003. U. K. Uniyal, Sr. Adv., Abhishek Garg, Dinesh Kumar Garg, Dhananjay Garg, Ishaan Tiwari, Advs. for the Appellant. Pardeep Gupta, Parinav Gupta, Mrs. Mansi Gupta, Rahul Kumar Choudhary, Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J. 1. This is a tenant’s appeal, arising out of rent and eviction proceedings from a Small Causes Court. The landlord’s suit for eviction was allowed and the tenant’s J.S.C.C. Revision and Writ Petition respectively have been dismissed. Leave was granted by this Court on 11.2.2015 and the impugned order was stayed, subject to certain conditions. 2. The premises in question is a shop situated in Kotla, Gangoh- Town, Nukur-Tehsil, District-Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to ‘premises’) which was given on rent to the present appellant on 06.01.1982 on a monthly rent of Rs. 165/- per month. Later, the rent was increased to Rs. 195/- p.m. and then from 01.01.1990 onwards to Rs. 250/- p.m. This is the admitted position. We must, however, record here that the landlord’s claim of the rent being further increased up to Rs.300/- per month was denied by the tenant though the Trial Court and the Revisional Court have given their findings on the enhanced rent, in favour of the landlord. 3. The appellant’s case is that he was a tenant in the shop, on a monthly rent of Rs.250/- per month. In June, 1993, the landlord refused to accept the rent which was then paid by the tenant through money order which was returned with an endorsement of refusal. Under these circumstances when the rent was being refused by the landlord, the tenant started depositing the rent in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) (hereafter referred to as ‘Court’). An amount of Rs.750/- which A B C D E F G H 303 at the rate of Rs.250/- per month was the rent for May, June and July which was thus deposited, and continued to be deposited in the Court, by the tenant. 4. A notice was given by the landlord on 05.04.1995, admittedly received by the tenant/appellant on 10.04.1995, where the landlord demanded rent from May, 1993 onwards. The notice did not result in the deposit of the rent before the landlord and consequently
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.