VATAN MAL versus KAILASH NATH

Citation: [1989] 2 S.C.R. 192 · Decided: 30-03-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
VATAN MAL 
v. 
KAILASH NATH 
MARCH 30, 1989 
IR.S. PATHAK, CJ, S. NATARAJAN AND M.N. 
VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.J 
Rajasthan Premises (Cpntrol of Rent and Eviction} Act, 1950-
Section 13-A-benefit of provisions-Conferred on all tenants-
Provided actual eviction had not taken place. 
Appellant herein was a lessee of the Respondent in respect of a 
shop since 1961, at a monthly rent ofRs.25 later increased to Rs.30 and 
in addition to the said rent, he was to pay house tax to the municipality. 
Respondent-landlord filed a suit for eviction against the appellant on 
the ground of default in payment of rent for the period 1.2.1966 to 
D 31.12.66. The appellant filed an application in that suit under sec. 13(4) 
of the Act (as it stood prior to amendment) for determination of arrears 
of rent and the interest payable thereon. The Trial Court determined 
the arrears of rent and the interest payable by the appellant. Conse-
quent upon the appellant's depositing the same, the suit was dismissed 
in terms of sec. 13(7) of the Act. The appellant continued depositing the 
E rent in Court. Thereafter the Respondent filed another suit on 21.5.75 
alleging that the appellant has again committed default in payment of 
rent and should therefore be evicted. The appellant received a notice 
calling upon him to appear in Court on 10.2. 76. Since he had not 
received a copy of the plaint, he was granted time till 30.3. 76 to file his 
written statement. In the written statement he refuted his liability to 
F 
pay the rent and also moved an application u/s 13(3) & 13( 4) of the 
amended Act praying that if in the course of his depositing the rent in 
court, there has been any omission, due to oversight the Court may 
determine the arrears of rent & interest payable thereon and permit 
him to deposit the same in court. 
G 
It may be pointed out here that before the appellant was served 
with the notice of the snit, the Act was amended on 29.9. 75 by Amend-
ing Ordinance No. 26 of 75 whereby a new section 13-A was added to 
the Act. The object of the newly added section was to provide benefit to 
all tenants against whom suits for eviction on the ground of default in 
paying the rent were pending by making a provision that the Courts 
H shall not pass any decree in favour of landlords on that ground if the 
192 
t 
... -
-
VATAN MAL v. KAILASH NATH 
193 
.,. 
tenant makes an application within a stipulated period and deposits in 
court the total rent due. 
A 
The Trial Court passed orders on the application u/s 13(3) & 13(4) 
and called upon the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.335 towards arrears 
of rent and interest before 28. 7. 76. The appellant complied with the 
f 
order but despite that, the Trial Court passed a decree for eviction and B 
the appellate Court confirmed the same . 
•• 
In the second appeal preferred by the appellant, he contended 
-
that the Trial Court ought to have treated the application tiled by him 
u/s 13(3) & 13( 4), as one tiled u/s 13-A of the Act and given the benefit 
thereof to him. Even though the High Court found that the appellant c 
~-
having received the notice of the suit late and hence was not in a position 
to make the application within 30 days, declined to interfere because in 
its view the Act has not provided for any relief to tenants placed in the 
situation in which the appellant was placed. The High Court held that 
the Act contains a lacuna but the same can be remedied by the legisla-
lure and not by Courts and as such the appellant cannot claim the l!enefit D 
of sec. 13-A of the Act. The suit having been tiled prior to the coming 
into force of Amending Act, the same will be governed by the provisions 
of unamended Act. 
~ 
On the dismissal of the second appeal by the High Court, the 
appellant has tiled this appeal after obtaining special leave. 
E 
-
Before this Court two questions arose for consideration viz: (1) 
whether the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of sec. 13-A because 
he had not tiled an application within 30 days from the date of com-
.-\ 
mencement of the Act, and (2) even otherwise whether by reason of the 
• 
earlier default in payment of rent for the period 1.2.1966 to 31.12.1966, 
F 
the appellant is disentitled under the Act to claim the benefit of sec. 
13-A. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
~ 
HELD: Section 13-A has been given overriding effect. Sub-
G 
section (1) of section 13-A mandates all courts not to pass any decree in 
favour of a landlord for 

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