SHIV DUIT JADIYA versus GANGA DEVI

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 1167 · Decided: 20-02-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI, RUMA PAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SHIV DUIT JADIY A 
V. 
GANGA DEVI 
FEBRUARY 20, 2002 
B 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
Rent Control and Eviction 
Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950-Sections C 
13 and 19A-Subsequent suit for eviction of tenant for subsequent default in 
payment of rent-However, tenant continued to deposit rent in the court during 
the pendency of landlord's appeal against decree in first suit--Whether deposit 
of rent valid payment or tender-Held, yes-Tenant is not defaulter for that 
particular period since he continued to deposit rent in the court being one of D 
the modes prescribed by Section 19A. 
Respondent-landlord filed suit (first suit) for recovery of rent and 
eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent. Trial Court refused 
decree for eviction since appellant-tenant deposited rent during the pendency 
of the suit complying with S.13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent E 
& Eviction) Act, 1950. Aggrieved, respondent-landlord filed first appeal 
contending that since the tenant did not strictly comply with the provisions 
ofS.13(4) of the Act, trial Court should have passed decree for eviction. During 
the pendency of the first appeal, tenant continued to deposit rent in the Court 
month by month for the entire period of pendency of the first appeal. p 
Meanwhile, before the appeal was withdrawn, respondent-landlord filed 
second suit for eviction on the ground of subsequent default in payment of 
rent for a particular period. Period of second default providing cause of action 
to the landlord in second suit was covered by the pi:riod during which the 
first appeal filed by the appellant was pending. Trial Court in the second suit 
held that after the decision in the first suit, the tenant ought to have paid or G 
tendered rent to the landlord in accordance with S.19-A of the Act and 
payment by way of deposit made by the tenant in the court during the 
pendency of the first appeal could not come to his rescue and passed decree 
for eviction. Appellate court set aside the decree. However, High Court 
1167 
H 
1168 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] I S.C.R. 
A restored the decree passed by the Trial Court. Hence the present appeal. 
The question that arose for consideration was whether the tenant can 
be said to have committed default in paying or tendering the rent to the 
landlord for a particular period even though he had deposited such rent in 
the Court during the pendency of the landlord's appeal against the decree 
B passed in the first suit and whether the amount deposited by the tenant, during 
the pendency of the landlord's appeal against decree in the first suit, can be 
held to be a valid payment or tender. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
C 
HELD : The tenant, in order to escape the rigour of his defence against 
eviction being struck out and to avail the benefit of relief against eviction under 
S. 13(6), of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act or, to 
be more accurate, to see such relief as was allowed to him by the trial court 
being upheld by the Appellate Court, shall have to satisfy the Appellate Court 
D also of his compliance with sub-section (4) upto the date of judgment by the 
Appellate Court. In the instant case, since the tenant was continuing to deposit 
the rent in the Court during the pendency of the appeal preferred by the 
landlord' against the decree in the first suit, there was no occasion for the 
landlord to hold the tenant a defaulter for that particular period and also no 
cause of action accrued to the landlord to file a second suit for eviction. The 
E tenant was not required to pay the same rent twice over personally to the 
landlord or to tender the same in one of the modes prescribed by S.19-A. The 
question of the payment, remittance of deposit of rent by tenant in one of the 
modes provided by S.I 9-A could have arisen if there was no suit or appeal 
pending between the landlord and the tenant and therein the tenant was not 
F required to deposit, or could not have made deposit of, rent in Court. 
[1173-C-Ff 
Kamruddin v. Wahid Ali, (1987) 1 RLR 290, disapproved. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURlSDlCflON : Ci~il Appeal No. 4993 of 
G 1997. 
H 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.2.97 of the Rajasthan High 
Court in S.B.C.S.A. No. 25 of 1994. 
A.B. Rohtagi, Anil Hooda, M.S. Bakshi and H1rinder Mohan Singh 
for the Appellant. 
.. 
·. 
SHIV DUTT JADIY Av. GANGA DEVI 
1169 
Aruneshwar Gupta for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of t

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