SHIV KUMAR versus JAWAHAR LAL VERMA & ORS.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 1079 · Decided: 14-09-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Case Allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
SHIV KUMAR 
v. 
JAWAHAR LAL VERMA & ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 14, 1988 
[A.P. SEN AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.] 
U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) 
Act, 1972. Section 39-Deposit of arrears of rent-Deposit within one 
month from date of knowledge of suit-Necessity for. 
A suit for eviction on the ground of arrears of rent was filed by the 
Appellant-landlord on I Ith June, 1973, after the coming into the force 
of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Lettin~, Rent and Eviction) 
Act, 1972. In the plaint it was contended that the Act would not apply to 
the demised premises which was a shop because the same had been 
constructed only in the year 1966 and as such the shop was exempted 
from the purview of the Act for a period of 10. years under section 2(31. 
The respondents contested the suit, the main ground being that the shop 
was covered by the Act and as such they were entitled to claim the 
statutory benefit conferred by section 39 on tenants who were in arrears 
of the rent. 
During the pendency of the suit the respondents' made applica-
tions in February and March, 1976 to direct the Appellant to disclose 
the date of construction of the shop. As no information was forthcoming 
the respondents after waiting for some, time deposited the arrears of 
rent together with the interest as required under section 39 of the Act in 
April, 1976. The Appellant thereafter furnished the information that 
though the shop had been constructed in 1965 it was assrssed to house 
tax for the first time in January, 1966 and therefore the date of con-
struction for purpose of section 2(2) would be January I, 1966. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
The Trial Court accepted the aforesaid statement regarding date G 
of construction of the shop and took the view that the respondents had , · 
failed to deposit the arrears of rent within one month from the date but 
had deposited the arrears only in the month of April,:1976 and as such 
the respondents were not entitled to claim the benefit.tinder section 39 · 
The Revision Petition preferred by the respondents to the District H 
1079 
A 
1080 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
I 1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
Court under section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act was 
dismissed following the ratio laid down by this Cour.t in Om Prakash v. 
Digvijendrapal, [1982] 3 SCR 491. The Addi. Dist!. Judge took the view 
that irrespective of the date of deposit of the arrears of rent, the respon-
dents were entitled to claim the benefit under section 39 because the Act 
itself did not apply to the demised premises inasmuch as the suit for 
B 
eviction was not pending on the date the Act came into force namely 
15th July, 1972 and had been filed only on 11. 7.1973. 
The respondents preferred a writ petition under Art. 226 to the 
High Court. A Single Judge held that the observation in Om Prakash's 
case to the effect that in order to attract section 39, the suit most be 
C 
pending on the date of the commencemPnt of the Act, viz., 15.7.1972 
has been held to be obiter dicta in the later case Vineet Kumar v . 
. Mangal Sain Wadhera, [19841 3 SCC 352, and therefore the respon-
dents would not stand.dis-entitled to seek the benefit of section 39 of the 
Act. The High Court further held that since the appellant had failed to 
disclose in the plaint the date of construction the respondents cannot be 
D found fault for not having deposited the arrears of rent, that the respon-
dents can be attributed to have knowledge about the date of construc-
tion of the shop only in the month of April 1976 and since the arrears of 
rent had been deposited in April, 1976, they are entitled to claim the 
benefit of section 39 of the Act. The High Court accordingly allowed the 
writ petition, and quashed the decree for ev.iction passed against the 
E 
respondents. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: I. The High Court was not correct in taking the view that.since 
the respondents came to know only in April 1976 about the date of 
( 
F 
construction of the building, the deposit of the arrears of rent in the 
month of April J.976 should be considered a valid deposit and sufficient 
compliance with the mandatory requirement of section 39. I I 086F -GI 
2. Section 39 envisages only two situations viz. deposit of the 
;irrears of rent within one month from the date of the commencement of . 
G 
the Act or within one month from the date of knowledge of the pendency 
of the suit. The Section does not provide for a tenant depositing 

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