MANIK CHAND JAIN versus MD. AHIYA

Citation: [2017] 3 S.C.R. 564 · Decided: 06-03-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[20 I 7] 3 S.C.R. 564 
MANIK CHAND JAIN 
v. 
MD. AHJYA 
(Civil Appeal No. 3421of2017) 
MARCH 06, 2017 
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASIIOK BIIUSIIAN, JJ.] 
Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972: s.5(l)(e) -
Eviction for non-payment of rent - Appellant was tenant in re~pect 
of Assam Type House and paying monthly rent of Rs. 700 -Agreement 
entered into between the tenant and plaintijf-la11dlord that tenant 
shall pay Rs.l /akh to plaintijf-la11dlord who proposed to construct 
a RCC building in place of Assam Type House - Monthly rent fixed 
was Rs.2400 - It was agreed that the advance of Rs.I lakh would 
be adjusted from 111011/h/y rent @ 50% and tenant shall pay to 
landlord in cash, balance rent of 50% till adjustment of advance in 
full - Tenant was put in possession in April 1990 - Howeve1; tenant 
continued to pay rent@ Rs. 700 p.111. and ji-0111 April 1994 started 
depositing Rs. 700 in court - Suit for eviction claiming arrears from 
August 1996 till August 1999 @ Rs.2400 p.111. - Prior to August 
1996, claim not made a~ it was time barred - Trial court held that 
tenant was defaulter -
Appellate court upheld the said finding -
Appellate court also took into consideration the total amount of 
Rs. l.82 lakhs that was paid by tenant and qfter adjusting the same 
in the rent to which plaintiff was entil/ed, it held that still the tenant 
was defaulter to the tune of Rs. 7614 - Revision - High Court upheld 
the finding of the Appellate court - On appeal. held: In view of 
terms of the Agreement and as per findings recorded by the Appellate 
Court as well as High Court, the 111on1'1/y rent ji-om April, 1990 was 
Rs.24001- - Taking into co11sidera1ion Cl. 7 of the Agree111ent, which 
provided for adjustment of 50% of the rent towards advance and 
payment of rent @ Rs.12001-, the tenant was liable to pay rent @ 
Rs.12001- -
The other part of Rs.1200/- was to be adjusted towards 
the advance made - Thus, lawful payment which plaintiff-landlord 
was entitled to receive was Rs.12001- - Ad111ittedly, the tenant paid 
only Rs. 7001-, even after taking possession 4 shop in April, 1990 
and deposited the same a111ount in the court ji·om April, 1994 - The 
deposit made by the tenant in the court was not the deposit of the 
564 
MANIK CHAND JAIN v. MD. AHIYA 
565 
lawful rent and, therefore, no error was committed by the courts 
A 
below in holding the defendant as defaulter - No inte1jerence in 
exercise of jurisdiction u/Art. 136 called for - Rent control and 
eviction. 
Dismissing the ap1)eal, the Court 
HELD: Section 5 of the 1972 Act, contains a heading "Bar 
against passing and execution of decree and order for ejection". 
The provision of Section 5(l)(e) clearly indicates that where the 
tenant has not paid the rent lawfully due from him in res1)ect of 
the house within a fortnight of its falling due, he is not saved from 
ejectment. Section 5 sub-section ( 4) further provides that where 
the landlord refuses to accept the lawful rent offered by his tenant, 
the tenant may, within a fortnight of its becoming due, deposit in 
Court the amount of such rent together with process fees for 
service of notice upon the landlord. In view of Clause 6 of the 
Agreement and as per findings recorded by the Appellate Court 
as well as High Court, the monthly rent from April, 1'990 was 
Rs.2400/-. Clause 7 of the Agreement refers to the adjustment 
of the rent to the extent of 50% of the rent and further 
contemplates payment of 50'Yo of rent in cash. Thus the liability 
B 
c 
D 
of the defendant to pay· the rent from the date of taking the 
possession in cash was Rs.1200/- with adjustment of balance 
E 
Rs.1200/-. The advance was to be adjusted in accordance with 
the aforesaid condition. Lawful rent in cash, which was to be paid 
by the defendant-tenant was Rs. 1200/- per month. Right from 
April, 1990 till the institution of suit, defendant-tenant has claimed 
the payment of rent at the rate of Rs.700/- per month only. Lawful 
rent, thus, was not paid by the defendant-tenant to which the 
F 
plaintiff-landlord was entitled to as per Agreement dated 
01.08.1988. The Agreement dated 01.08.1988 being admitted to 
the tenant, he cannot be heard in saying that by mere payment of 
Rs. 700/- per month i.e. payment at the old rate, he can be saved -· 
from the eviction. The findings of the Appellate Court that 
G 
defendant is defaulter affirmed by the High Court are findings of 
the facts based on appreciation of entire e
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.