UMESH CHAND GANDHI versus 1 ST ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ANR.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 514 · Decided: 23-09-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N.P. SINGH · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UMESH CHAND GANDHI 
v. 
1 ST ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 23, 1993 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.) 
U.P. (Urban Building Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 
( 
1972-Section 39--Deposit made by tenant falling short of the amount re-
quired to be deposited-Applicability of the principle of substantial com-
c plia11ce/de minimus non curet lex. 
Section 39 of the U.P. (Urban Building Regulation or Letting Rent 
and Eviction) Act, 1972 conferred right on the tenant to absolve the default 
by depositing the arrears, interest accrued thereon, and full costs of the 
suit within one month from the date of commencement or the Act. 
D 
The respondent landlord initiated proceedings in the court of Small 
Causes for ejectment of the Appellant/tenant on the ground of default. 
Due to an error in the calculation there was a short fall in making 
E the deposit. The Trial Court decreed ejectment. The Dist. Judge, in 
revision, held that the appellant had substantially complied with Section 
39 and the shortfall in deposit was due to bonafide mistake in calculation. 
The landlord filed a writ petition before the High Court. A Single Judge 
referred the matter to the Division Bench for decision on the question as 
to whether the Court had the jurisdiction to go into the question of 
F bonafide mistake of calculation or substantial compliance. The Division 
Bench held that the tenant would not be entitled to get the benefit of the 
rule de minimus. Basing on this finding, the Single Judge allowed the Writ 
petition, set aside the order of the appellate authority and granted decree 
of eviction. 
G 
Disposing of the appeal, by special leave, preferred by the tenant, 
this Court 
HEt'D : 1.1. Section 39 of the UP (Urban Building Regulation of 
Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 confers right on the tenant to absolve 
H his default and save his tenancy P,rovided he complied with the conditions 
' 514 
•
GANDHI v. SESSIONS JUDGE 
515 
prescribed therein, namely, deposit of arrears into the court made within A 
one month from the date of the commencement of the Act or from the date 
of his knowledge of pendency of the suit whichever is later. (517-E] 
1.2. The theory of substantial compliance is not a compliance of S.39. 
But when there is a bonafide mistake in calculation, the burden is on the 
tenant to establ' sh by adducing evidence, regarding the bonafides in com-
B 
mitting mistake. If the Court is satisfied that the tenant committed 
bonafide mistake in computation of the three components referred to in 
Sec.39 or anyone and there is a default in compliance thereof, if the amount 
in deficit is small, it would ignore the said mistake applying de minimus 
principle and refuse decree for eviction. The mistake in calculation must C 
be due to the above bonafide mistake. [517-G-H; 518-A] 
1.3 It is settled law ~t the courts of justice generally do not take 
trifling and immaterial matters into account except under peculiar cir-
cumstances. The strictness or harshness or inflexibility would lead to 
injustice or miscarriage of justice. Therefore, in working out equities, the D 
court would apply in general the maxim "de minimis non curet lex". (518-B] 
1.4 Bona fide mistake may occur in myriad circumstances but it 
depends upon each case. Neither rigid nor exhaustive nor inflexible rule 
could be laid cutting its amplitude into mathematical formula, in which 
even also it would lead to miscarriage of justice or injustice. The division E 
bench has rightly left the question to the discretion of the courts ander the 
Act to consider in each case in the given facts and circumstances whether 
non-compliance was bona fide and trifle, and then' to grant relief accord-
ingly, [518-D] 
1.5. There is no justification to put the compliance of Se.c. 39 in 
straight jacket formula. Each case has to be con'sidered on its own facts 
and'it is for the courts below to consider and decide on the basis of factual 
matrix. [518-E] 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3425 of G 
1983. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11-11-82 of the Allahabad High 
Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9296 of 1979. 
Joseph Vellapally and D .K. Garg for the Appellant. 
H 
516 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Satish Chandra and Yijay Kumar for the Respondents. 
B 
c 
The following Order of the Court was deliwrcd : 
The appellant/tenant had the demised premises on a monthly rent of 
Rs. 40 from Ram L
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.