SURESH CHAND versus GULAM CHISTI

Citation: [1990] 1 S.C.R. 186 · Decided: 31-01-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SURESH CHAND 
v. 
-~
GULAM CHISTI 
JANUARY :H, 1990 
B 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, CJ., K. JAGANNATHA 
SHETTY AND A.M. AHMADI, JJ.] 
U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) 
Act, 1972: Sections 2(2), 39 and 40-Premises constructed in 1967-
Tenant-Whether entitled to protection of statutory provision. 
c 
On the completion of construction of the demised premises in 
1967, the appellant-landlord had let it out to the respondent-tenant in 
the same year. Later, on 27th May, 1972 the landlord filed the eviction 
suit against the tenant. On 15th July, 1972 the U.P. Urban Buildings 
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 came into force. 
D 
The tenant deposited in the Court on 2nd September, 1977 an amount 
of Rs.4005 being the arrears of rent inclusive of interest and cost. This 
payment was made within one month after the expiry of the period of 
ten years stipulated in section 2(2) of the Act to take advantage of 
section 39 of the Act. Section 2(2) inter a/ia provided that nothing in the 
_) 
Act shall apply to a building for a period of ten years from the date on 
E 
which its construction was completed, while section 39 dealt with pend-
ing suits for eviction relating to building brought under the regulation 
for the first time. 
The Trial Court gave the benefit of section 39 and refused to order 
ejectment of the tenant. The landlord's revision application was 
F 
rejected by the Additional District Judge, and his further revision was 
dismissed by the High Court. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court. 
HELD: (I) In order to secure the benefit of Section 39 or 40 it 
G 
must be shown that the suit, appeal or revision was pending on the date 
of commencement of the Act. Secondly, if the suit is founded on the 
allegation of non-payment of rent, the tenant must, within one month 
y 
from the date of commencement of the Act or from the date of know-
ledge of the pendency of the suit, deposit in court the entire amount of 
rent and damages for use and occupation of the building with interest as 
H 
prescribed and landlord's entire cost of the suit, to take the benefii of 
186 
)., 
SURESH CHAND v. GULAM CHISTI 
187 
the said provision. If both these conditions are satisfied, the law, section A 
39, mandates that no decree for eviction shall be passed except on any of 
the grounds specified in the proviso to sub-section (1) or clauses (b) to 
(gJ of sub-section (2) of section 20 of the Act. Similarly, section 40 lays 
down that if an appeal or revision (arising out of a suit for eviction of a 
tenant from any building to which the old Act does not apply) is pending 
on the date of commencement of the Act, the benefit of section 39 will be B 
available to the tenant. l 1998-EJ 
(2) The legislature intended to give the benefit of sections 39 and 
40 to s.uit, -appeals or revisions which were pending on 15th July, 1972 
and in which the deposit came to be made within one month from that 
date. The expression 'such' preceding the word 'commencement' is 
C 
clearly suggestive of the fact that it has reference to the date of com-
mencement of the Act and the payment must be made within one 
month from such commencement. unless such a restricted meaning 
to the section is given, it would not be able to advance the legisla· 
tive intent to relieve the landlords of new buildings from the rigours 
of the Act. [lOOF-H] 
D 
(3J The Legislature desired to limit the scope of the application of 
sections 39 and 40 to suits, appeals and revisions pending on the date of 
commencement of the Act, i.e., 15th July, 1972, relating to buildings to 
which the old Act did not apply and to which the new Act was to apply 
forthwith and not at a later date. This is clear from the fact that the 
E 
section contemplates deposit of arrears to rent and damages together 
with interest and cost within one month from 'such date of commence-
ment' meaning the date of commencement of the Act. 12008-C J 
R.D. Ram Nath & Co. & Anr. v. Girdhari Lal & Anr., [1975] 
A.L.J. 1; Ram Swaroop Rai v. Lilavathi, [1980] 3 SCR 1034-(1980) 3 F 
SCC 452; Om Prakash Gupta etc. v. Dig Vijendrapal Gupta etc., lJ982J 
3 SCR 491; Vineet Kumar v. Mangat Sain Wadhera, [1984] 3 SCC 352; 
Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor and General Traders, 11975] 1 SCC 
770; A.K. Gupta & Sons v. Damodar Valley Corporation, [1966] I 
SCR 796; Nand Kishore Marwah v. Samundri Devi, 11987] 4 SCC 382 
and Atma Ram Mittal v. lshwar Singh Punia, [1988] 4 SCC 284, refer-

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