SHYAMCHARAN SHARMA versus DHARAMDAS

Citation: [1980] 2 S.C.R. 334 · Decided: 04-12-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
334 
SHY AMCHARAN SHARMA 
v. 
DHARAMDAS· 
December 4, 1979 
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER, R· S. PATHAK AND 0. CHINNAPPA RrnDY, JJ.} 
' 
Madhya Prade~h Accommodation1 Control Act, 1961 (41 of 1961), Ss. 12, 
t 
' 
• 
13(1) and 13(6)-SuiJI for el·iction of, tenant for failure to pay arrears \of(!\.
rent-1.fonthly rent falling due after' filing of suit-Default in pay1ne11t of-
i 
Court ·whether can extend time for payment anti condbne delay-Protectio1r· 
1 
-
ag.Unst eviction-JVhether tenant can claim. 
· 
The· respondent-landlord sought eviction of the appellant-tenar::.! front the 
suit premises for failure to pay arrears of rent, despite service of noti..;e of 
demand. The trial court found that the tenant was in arrears oZ payment of 
ren4 but the tenant having dijiosited the arrears of reitt Withiri 
the time 
allov.'ed by the court on bis application the tenant was entitled· to avail the 
protection of sectioa. 12(3) of the 1-ladhya Pradesh Accommodation Controt 
Act, 1961, and dismissed the suit for eviction. 
The landlord preferred an appeal and while the same .\Vas pending, the 
tenant filed an npplication under section 13(1) of the Act for condonation of 
<lclay in depositing the rent, month by month, \Vhich bad become payable after 
the filing of the suit. On several occasions, when the suit and· the appeal were 
pending before the trial court and the appellate court respectiVely, the tenant 
had deposited the monthly rent a day or two or three beyond· the prescribed 
date, and the same had been received by the court and drinvn· out by the land-
lord, '\vithout any protest. The landlord, taking advantage of", the 
filing ·of , 
·the t_enanfs application for condonation of delay, co~tended that the court ~-
..-.... 
had no po'ver to extend the time for deposit of the monthly rent and that he 
'4'~ 
was entitled to a decree for eviction consequent on the non-compliance ,\·ith 
the 'provisions of section 13(1) of the Act. The appellate court net;'ltived this-
contention and dismissed the appeal. In the second appeal preferred· by the 
landlord, the ·High Court held that the Court had. no power to extend· time 
and decreed the suit for eviction; 
, 
In the tenant's appeal to this Court on the question whether the Court bad 
the pov;rer to condone the delay in depositing the monthly rent falling· due after 
G 
the :filing of the suit for e'ictiori. 
.; 
H 
HELD :1. The court had the jurisdiction. to extend time for deposit or \ 
"-
payment of monthly rent falling due after tbe filing of the suit. [339 GJ 
--
2. In order to entitle a, tenant to claim the profecti')!l of secti::Jn 12(3), the 
tenant. had to make payment or deposit as requirecf by section 13'. The arrearg 
of rent should be paid or deposited witliin one month_ of the service of the 
\\Tit of summons on the tenant or 'vithin such further- tiine· aS may be allowed 
by ·the C0Uf'4 and should· further deposit or pay everr month by the 15th, a. 
sum equivalent to the rent. [338 A·BJ 
' 
SHYAM CHARAN v. DHARAMDAS (Chimwppa Reddy, !.) 
335 
3. Failure to pay or deposit a sum equivalent to the rent by the 15th of 
A 
qvery month, subsequent to the filing of the suit for eviction \Vill not entitle· 
), 
the landlord, straightaway, to a decree for eviction. The consequences of the 
"' 
Wa>osit or payn1ent and non-payment or non-dep~it are prescribed by sub-
sections (5) and (6) of section 13. 
[338 BJ 
4. A discretion is vested in the court tmder section 13(6) to order the 
striking out of the defence against eviction. 
[338 DJ 
5. If the court has the discretion not to strike out the defence of a tenant 
committing default in paymoot or deposit of rent as required by section 13(1), 
, the court surely has the further discretion to condone the default and extend 
the time for payment or deposit. Such a discretion is a necessary implication 
of the discretion not to strike out the defence. Any other construction may 
lead, to a perversion of the object of the ·Act.- namely, 'the adequate protection 
of the tenant' [338 F-G] 
6. Section 12(3) entitles a tenant to claim protection against eviction on the 
ground specified in section 12(1)(a) if he: makes payment or deposit as required 
by section 13. 
As the court has under section 13, the power to extend the time 
for payment or deposit, payment or deposit, within the extended 
time will 
entitle the tenant to claim the protection of section 12(3). [338 HJ 
7. Express provision for extension of time for

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