OM WATI GAUR AND ORS. versus JITENDRA KUMAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 17 · Decided: 31-10-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
OM WAT! GAUR AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
JITENDRA KUMAR AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 31, 2002 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
B 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 
19~~~~~~ 
c 
Eviction petition filed in the Civil Court under the old Act-On ground 
of non-payment of rent etc.-Benefits no-eviction conferred on certain 
categories of tenants after deposit of rent, interest and cost of suit under the 
New Act-Section 39-Entitlement !<>-Held, since there was a short deposit D 
of rent and interest, tenant is not entitled to such benefits. 
Respondent-landlords determined the tenancy by serving a notice to 
the tenant. Landlords filed eviction petition and also for recovery of rent, 
damages and mesne profits. Tenant deposited arrears of rent for certain 
period at a rate less than the actual rate of rent. Tenant died during the E 
pendency of the suit and appellants (heirs of tenants) were brought on 
record. Jn the !"eanwhile U.P. Urban building (Regulations of Letting, 
Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 was enacted. Vide Section 39 of the Act, 
benefits 
no eviction on certain categories of tenants in the pending 
proceeding had been conferred on depositing arrears of rent, interest 
thereon and cost of the suit to the Landlord. Appellants filed applications F 
praying for grant of such benefits but Court decreed the suit in favour of 
landlords holding that there was short deposit of rent. Revision petition 
filed by the appellants was allowed. Aggrieved, respondent-landlords 
successfully filed writ petition in the High Court. Hence this appeal by 
the tenant. 
It was contended for the appellants that arrears of rent was deposited 
before coming into force of the new Act and differential amounts and 
interest were deposited thereafter. Therefore, provisions under Section 39 
of the Act were duly complied with for getting benefit of no eviction. 
17 
G 
H 
A 
B 
18 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
On behalf of the respondent, it was submitted that appellants' 
tenancy had been terminated by notice and after coming into force of the 
new Act, they were not tenants to claim benefits under Section 39 of the 
Act. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The provisions of the concerned statute have to be looked 
at in order to ascertain the rights available under the statute. The 
definition of "tenant" as contained in Section 3(a) of the U.P. Urban 
Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act includes the heirs 
and legal representatives residing with the tenant at the time of his death. 
C Admittedly, the Appellants were residing with the tenant at the time of 
his death. On coming into force of the new Act, even though the tenancy 
had been terminated, rent was payable on behalf of the tenant and, 
therefore, he would have been a tenant. On his death, the appellants who 
were residing with him at the time of his death, would be tenants. 
D 
(25-C-D) 
1.2. The deposits of rent at the rate of Rs. 80 per month were not on 
time. Besides interest had not been deposited on delayed payment of rent. 
The first deposit was on 29th April, 1967 (for the period from 1st October, 
1966 to 31st March, 1967). Thus from October 1966 to March 1967 there 
E had been no deposits. Interest would have been payable on this delayed 
payment. Admittedly this interest amount had not been deposited. The 
second deposit was only on 6th October, 1967 (for the period from 1st 
April, 1967 to 30th September, 1967). Even here no interest had been 
deposited for the delayed payments. The third deposit was on 25th April, 
F 1968 (for the period from 1st October, 1967 to 31st March, 1968). Here 
again interest had not been deposited for the delayed payments. More 
importantly, the Appellants chose to deposit at the rate of Rs. 80 per month 
when the actual rent was Rs. 100 per month. By choosing to deposit at 
the rate of Rs. 80 per month they took a risk that if the Court did not 
accept their contentions there would be no full deposit. The trial Court in 
G its uecree held that the rent was Rs. I 00 per month. This portion of the 
decree has not been challenged. Once it was held that the rent was Rs. 
I 00 there was no deposit of the full rent within one month of the coming 
into force the said Act as envisaged by Section 39. Thus on this ground 
the High Court was right in confirming the decree for eviction. 
H 
(25-H; 26-A-C) 
-. 
OM WA Tl GAUR ,. JITJ-:NDRA KUMAR [S.N. VAR/A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.