RAMINDER SINGH SETHI versus D. VIJAYARANGAM

Citation: [2002] 3 S.C.R. 213 · Decided: 17-04-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI, B.N. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

, 
• 
y 
J 
RAMINDER SINGH SETHI 
A 
v. 
D.VUAYARANGAM 
APRIL 17, 2002 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.] 
B 
Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961: 
Ss.2(2), 18 and 2/(l)(a)-Tenant in arrears of rent-Suit by landlord 
for eviction of tenant filed within five years of construction of premises-s. 18 C 
prohibiting receiving of advance rent exceeding 2 month's rent-Tenant 
contending that advance rent was available with landlord for atfjustment-
Held, in view of proviso to s.2(2). up to the date of filing of suit s.18 was not 
applicable to the premises and landlord was not prevented by law from securing 
advance payment of rent by consent of the parties-Inspite of the landlord D 
having advance rent available with him tenant is bound to pay or tender 
amount of rent falling due month by month on the date on which it is payable 
as per law or contract-No fault can be found with findings of High Court 
that tenant was in arrears and ground for eviction u/s. 2/(l)(a) was made 
out-The question of additional protection to tenant confe"ed by 1999 Act or 
moulding relief by reference thereto does not arise as the 1999 Act has not E 
been given retrospective effect and rights of parties to litigation stand 
crystallised on the date of commencement of the list-s. 70 of the 1999 Act does 
not provide for the new Act to be applicable to appeal or Proceedings pending 
before Supreme Court-Karna/aka Rent Act, 1999-S.70. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 582 of F 
2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.9.1999 of the Kamataka High 
Court in H.R. R.P. No. 3740 of 1992. 
P.R. Ramasesh, Ab hay Prakash Shahay and Amar L. V. for the Appellant. G 
+· 
M.S. Ganesh, Ms. Nikhil Nayyar and Mrs. Urmila Sirur for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
213 
H 
214 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The landlord/respondent filed a suit for eviction of the tenant-appellant 
on the ground available under clause (a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 21 of 
the Kamataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter the "Act", for short). 
Though the eviction was sought for on other grounds as well but this is the 
only ground on which eviction has been ordered by the High Court, and 
B therefore, we shall confine ourselves to the question of availability of this 
ground for eviction. 
The High Court has found that on the date of initiation of proceedings, 
the tenant~appellant was in arrears of rent ·which he neither paid nor tendered 
within two months of the date of service of notice on him demanding payment 
C of the arrears ofrent. However, it has also been found that the tenant-appellant 
had paid some amount by way of advance rent at the time of creation of 
tenancy. The details of the arrears and the advance rent are not relevant; 
suffice it to say if the amount of advance rent is adjusted against the amount 
of arrears found due and payable by the tenant then he is not in arrears. On 
the other hand, if the amount of advance rent is not available for adjustment 
D then the tenant is in arrears. Another relevant fact which is not in controversy 
is that the building wherein the tenancy premises are situated was constructed 
. in the year 1977 when the tenant was inducted into the tenancy premises. The 
period of default in payment of rent is referable to the years 1978 to 1980. 
The eviction proceedings were commenced in the year 1982 when the period 
E of 5 years from the date of construction of the building had not expired. 
According to Section 18 of the Act, the landlord is prohibited from 
receiving 'by way of advance rent any amount exceeding two months rent. 
Proviso to sub-Section (2) of Section 2 provides that Part III of the Act which 
consists of Section 14 to 18 (both inclusive) shall not apply to a building 
F constructed after the 1st day of August, 1957 for a period of 5 years from the 
date of construction of such building. Thus up to the date of the filing of the 
suit, undisputedly Section 18 was not applicable to the building wherein the 
tenancy premises are situated. 
Every tenant is obliged to pay or tender rent to the landlord within 15 
G days of the month to which the rent relates. The purpose of advance rent is 
to protect the landlord from the unscrupulous tenant who may run into arrears 
and vacate the premises and comfortably walk away with arrears. The advance _ 
rent is available for adjustment or is liable to be refunded at the time of 
vacating of the premises except where t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.