RAM DEO versus UMRAO SINGH

Citation: [1980] 2 S.C.R. 67 · Decided: 15-11-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
67 
RAMDEO 
v. 
UMRAO SINGH 
November 15, 1979 
(R. S. SARKARIA AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] 
U. P. (Temporary) 
Control of Rent and Eviction Act 1947-Section 
3(1)(•)-Scope of 
In respect of arrears of rent the respondent-landlord and 
the 
appellant 
who was his tenant e:D.tered into an agreement on June 13, 1960 that the tenant 
would pay every month Rs. 50/- representing Rs. 25/- as arrears of rent and 
Rs. 25/~ towards the current rent. 
For sometime the appellant made the pay-
ments in accordance with the agreement but thereafter fell in arrears. The respon~ 
dent served a notice of demand upon the appellant on August 21, 1961. Even-
tually the respondent instituted a suit for damages and eviction of the appellant 
from the premises. 
A. 
B· 
c 
Tho appellant pleaded that the arrears of rent due at the. date of notice were 
D• 
Rs. 75 /- only which did not exceed three months rent and that the balance of 
the amount demanded represepted only past arrears covered by t)ie agreement 
in reopect of which the landlord had waived his right of ejectment. 
Dismissing the suit the trial court held that only three months rent was 
in arrears and no ground for eviction had been made out under section 3 ( 1) (a) 
of tho U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. 
&. 
On appeal the Civil Judge was of tho view that the rent in arrears on the 
date of agreement did not lose its character as 
"arrears of rent" 
merely 
because there. was ·an agreement to pay it in instalments. 
The High 
Court 
affirmed the finding of the Civil Judge. 
In appeal to this Court it was cont<mded Olll behalf of the appellant that out 
of Rs. 150/- due to the respondent on the date of his notice only Rs. 75/- was 
due towards the arrears of rent for 
threei 
months 
preceding 
the 
notice 
while the balance of Rs 75(- was a distinct liability under the agreement and 
therefore, could not be treated and tacked on as arrears of rent to the rent due 
for the threei months preceding the date of notice, for the purpose of section 
3(1)(a) of the Act. 
Allowing the appeal and accepting the appellant's contention, 
HELD : 1. The appellant was not in "arrears of rent for more than .three 
months" within the meaning of section 3(l)(a) of the Act and therefore was 
not liable to be evicted under the clause. [71 FJ 
2. As a result of the agreement dated June 13, 1960 the 
pre-agreement 
arrears lost their original character of "arrears of rent" and 
assumed 
the 
character of a consolidated debt, which under the terms of the agreement, was 
paYable by the debtor (appellant) in .monthly instalments. 
The 
agreement 
E 
G 
• 
68 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1980] 2 S.C.R. 
""' 
brought into being a new cause of action and created a liability against the 
tenant, indep<ndent and distinct from that founded on the rent note or the lease 
of the premises. 
The· arrears of three· instalments. due under. the agreemen~ · 
had ceased to be "arrears of rent" and could not be tacked on tOt the rent due 
for three months preceding the date of notice, for the purpose of the section. 
[71 A-Bl 
·s 
CIVIL APPELLATE JuRJsorcnoN :. Civil Appeal No. 2601 of 1969. 
·C 
D 
Appeal by Special Leave1 from the Judgment dated 21-8-1969 of 
the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 2693/6~. 
W. S. Barlingay and R. C. Kohli for the Appellant. 
S. L. Aneja and K. L. Taneja for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SARKARIA, J. 
This appeal by special leave is directed against a 
judgment, dated August 21. 1969, of the High Court of Allahabad, 
affirming on second appeal the judgment of the Civil Judge, Dehra 
Dun. It arises out of these facts : 
.. 
·' 
• 
'E 
Umrao Singh, respqndent herein, who died during the pendency 
of proceedings in this Court and is substituted by his legal representa-
tives, instituted a suit on Septeml••r 26, 1961 against Ram Deo, appelc 
larit herein, for damages and '\)!' eviction from House No. 122B, 
f 
Choharpur, District Dehm Dun. 
Umrao Singh was the landlord of the 
G 
'H 
suit premises. 
Ram Deo was occupying the premises at a monthly rent 
of Rs. 25. 
On June 13, 1960, a sum of Rs. 600 wa~ due to the respondent 
from the appellant as arrears of rent and an agreement was execnted 
between the parties on that date, according to which, the tenant had to 
pay Rs. 50 every month to the respondent, to wit Rs. 25 toward~ 
liquidation of the compounded ar.rears of rent, and Rs. 25 per month 
towards the current rent fall

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