LexRAM SEWAK versus MUNNA LAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A RAM SEWAK v. MUNNA LAL DECEMBER 16, 1987 B [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.) c Uttar Pradesh (Temporary) Control of.Rent and Eviction Act, !947: SS. 3( l)(a) & 7C-Default in payment of rent-Deposit in court- Validity of-Tenant to show existence of circumstances justifying deposit. Section 3(l)(a) of the U .P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Evic- tion Act, 1947 permits eviction of the tenant who is in arrears of rent for more than three months and has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month of the service upon him of a notice of demand. When a landlord refuses to accept any rent lawfully paid to him, s. 7C(l} D entitles the tenant to deposit such rent in the court. Section 7C(4) requires the court to cause a notice of the deposit to be served on the landlord. Section 7C(6) provides that where a deposit has been made as aforesaid, it shallbe deemed that the rent has been duly paid. The appdlant-tenant was in arrears of rent of the demised shop E from December, 1966 to February, 1971. The amount remained unpaid despite notices dated March 22, 1971 and April 12, 1971. In the suit for his ejectment under s. 3(1)(a), the tenant took the defence that he had tendered the rent to the plaintiff-landlord but the latter had refused to accept It, that even the rent sent by money order was refused, and thereupon he had made the deposit in the court under s. 7C(l) of the F Act, and there were no arrears of rent due from him. The trial court and the first appellate court held that statutory conditions requisite for a valid deposit were not fulfilled and, therefore, the default in payment of rent within.the meaning of s. 3(l)(a) stood establi.shed and the tenant was liable to eviction. The High Court dis- G missed the appeal. In the appeal before this Court in addition to the defence taken before the courts below, .it was contended that though the landlord was aware that the rent was being deposited in the court ever since August, 1967 he waited for a period of four years before issuing a notice of H demand for arrears for rent. 416 RAMSEWAKv.MUNNALAL 417 Dismissing the appeal, A ~ HELD: 1. Both in law and equity the appellant had no case. The ejectment suit was properly decreed by the Courts below. I 429H; 430A] 2.1 The mere fact of a deposit under s. 7C.of the U.P. (Tempor· ary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 in itself cannot be an B answer to an action under s. 3(1)(a) for eviction of the tenant for default in payment of rent. Irrespective of the fact of such deposit r the tenant has to show the existence of circumstances justifying the deposit. [421G; 423A] ' Brahmanand v. Kaushalya Devi, [1977] 3 SCC 1, referred to. c ' ~ 2.2 Readings. 7C, the rules framed thereunder and the statutory forms together, it cannot be said that a deposit under s. 7C is necessar· 1 ily a valid one preceded by an enquiry or satisfaction of the Court that the condition precedent set out in s. 7C(l) is fulfilled. Though the appl· icant is asked to indicate briefly the circumstances in which he wants to D make a deposit, there is no procedure contemplated for an enquiry into l those circumstances. The statutory provisions do not contemplate transmission of the application to the landlord, the fixing of a date of hearing on which both the tenant and the landlord could be heard or the passing of a considered order by the Court thereafter and being satisfied that there was in fact a tender of rent by the tenant and a E refusal by the landlord to receive the rent or a dispute regarding the l~ ownership of the property which rendered it difficult or impossible for the tenant to send money to the landlord straight. The notice which is , sent to the landlord merely sets out that the landlord is at liberty to withdraw it ifhe so desires. [424C-FI F 2.3 In the instant case, the trial court, the first appellate court and the High Court have concurrently found that there was no valid tender of rent by the tenant or refusal thereof by the landlord. The application filed by the tenant under s. 7C gave no details in the space ) against column 6 of the form prescribed in Appendix 'A' to the Rules framed under the Act, setting out the circumstances in which it was G -).- alleged that the landlord had refused to receive-the rent. The applica- tion barely asserted that the landlord had refused to accept the rent. There was no information as to the na
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.