SMT. VIJAY LAXMI GANGAL versus MAHENDRA PRATAP GRAG

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 583 · Decided: 08-05-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

SMT. VIJAY LAXMI GANGAL 
v. 
MAHENDRA PRATAP GRAG 
May8, 1985 
[S. MuRTAZA FAZAL ALI, A. VARAoARAJAN AND 
RAUGANATH MISRA, JJ] 
583 
The Uttar Pradesh Buildings (Regulation of Letting, l~enl and Evictiition) 
Act, 1972. 
Section 20 (4) Suit for eviction of tenant for arrears of rent-Quantum of 
rent in dispute-Failure of tenant to prove his case-Deposit by tenant of rent at 
rate claimed by laud/ord-Such 'deposit' whether an unconditional tender-
Discretionary relief-Tenant whether entitled to claim. 
The appellant-landlady filed a suit for recovering possession from the 
respondent-tenant on the allegation that the demised property was situated 
beyond the municipal limits of the town, and was exempt from the provisions 
of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent 
and 
Eviction), Act 1972, that it was let out to the respondent on a rent of l\.s. 360 
per rnengem, that the tenancy had come to an end by efflux of the time fixed in 
the rent note, and that as the respondent was in arrears of rent to the extent of 
Rs. 3,960 she was entitled to recover possession of the premises with the arrears 
of rent. The respondent oppose the suit contending that the property was 
situated within three kilometres of the muncipal lin1its of the town and was, 
therefore, governed by the provisions of the Act, denied that the rent was 
Rs. 360 per mensem and contended that it was only Rs. 125 per mensem, denied 
that hr had executed the rent note, and the tenancy had come to an end by 
efflux of time, that the amounts claimed as arrears of rent and mesne 
profits were wrong and excessive, that the notice to quit was 
invalid 
in 
law and that the suit was barred by the provisions of s. 20 of the 
Act. 
The Additional District Judge who tried the suit exercising jurisdiction 
as a Judge of Small Causes Court, found that the property was situate 
within three kilometrC' of the municipal limits and was governed by the pro-
visions of the Act, that the tenancy for the period of 11 months under the rent 
note had come to an end by efllux of time, and the parties were governed by 
it, and that the suit was governed by the provi~ions of s. 20 of the Act. On the 
question whether the respondent was liable for eviction it was held that though 
the respondent had deposited the full amount of rent as claimed at Rs. 360 per 
mensem together with damages for use and occupation, interest and costs as 
required bys. 20(4) of the Act amounting to Rs. 7,490 a day after the first 
hearing date fixed for the suit, as the respondent had contended in the written 
statement that the rent was Rs. 125 per mensem the deposit of Rs. 7,490 
towards arrears, interest and costs was not unconditional and therefore invalid 
A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
584 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1~8Sl SUPPL. s.c.R. 
ands. 20(4) of the Act did not help the respondent. The suit was accordingly 
decreed for eviction with arrears of rent and mesne profits. 
The respondent filed a revision petition and a Division Bench of the 
High Court noticed that one of the conditions of s. 20(4) of the Act was that 
the tenant should unconditionally pay or deposit the entire amount due together 
with interest and costs, and that s. 20(6) says that any amount deposited under 
s. 20(4) shall be paid to the landlord without prejudice to the pleadings of the 
parties, and that in the instant case the desposit would not be a conditional 
deposit mtrely because the respondent had contended in the written statement 
that the rent was Rs. 125 per mensem and not Rs. 360 per mensem as alleaed 
in the plaint. The civil revision petition was allowed and the suit was dismissed 
with costs. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : 1. The suit in the instant case, is not based on any of the 
grounds mentioned in s. 20(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings 
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 and though the respondent 
is alJegcd to have been in arrears of rent to the ex.tent of Rs. 3,960 there is no 
aUegation in the plaint that he is in arrears of rent for not less than four months 
and had failed to pay the same to the appellant within one month from the 
date of service upon him of a notice of demand, which is the ground mentioned 
in clause (a) of s. 20(2) of the Act. 
[588 G-HJ 
2. No interference with the decision of the High Court is called for. 
The District Judge should have normally disn1issed the suit for want of 
jursidiction in view of s. 20(1) of th

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