Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • A. Banerji, J.
Acts
  • provisions of S. 20(4), U.P Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act,
  • S. 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act,
  • provisions of sub-rules (1) and (2).
  • sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2)
  • provisions of sub-rule (4)
  • (1) of S. 30. Sub-rules (1)
  • S. 30 or Rule 21,
  • Sub-rule (1)
  • Sub-rule (2)
  • Sub-rule (3)
  • Sub-rule (4)
  • Sub-rule (5)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • A. Banerji, J.
Acts
  • provisions of S. 20(4), U.P Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act,
  • S. 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act,
  • provisions of sub-rules (1) and (2).
  • sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2)
  • provisions of sub-rule (4)
  • (1) of S. 30. Sub-rules (1)
  • S. 30 or Rule 21,
  • Sub-rule (1)
  • Sub-rule (2)
  • Sub-rule (3)
  • Sub-rule (4)
  • Sub-rule (5)
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This is a tenant's writ petition arising from a suit filed by the landlord respondent no. 3, Ram Autar, in the Court of the Judge, Small Causes, Bulandshahr, for eviction of the petitioner Chokha Mal alias Chaula Ram from a disputed shop on the ground of default in payment of rent. On 12 January 1979 (held to be the first date of hearing), the petitioner deposited Rs. 2,714 under S. 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 ("the Act"). The landlord claimed that this deposit did not cover all sums due (including interest). The petitioner alleged no shortfall, relying also on two further deposits (Rs. 216 each) made in Misc. Case No. 24 of 1973 under S. 30(1) of the Act.

At trial the court partly decreed the landlord's suit for recovery of rent from 1-6-1975 but refused ejectment relief. The landlord revised the trial court's order before the District Judge under S. 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, arguing (i) the deposit in court by the tenant was short of the full amount required so S. 20(4) did not apply, and (ii) the deposits under S. 30(1) were invalid because no notice was issued to the landlord. The District Judge accepted both contentions and allowed revision, decreeing the landlord's suit. The present writ petition challenges that revisional order dated 12-11-1979.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. When is a tenant entitled to the benefit of S. 20(4) of the Act (i.e., the right to save tenancy by depositing the entire rent due with interest and costs at the first hearing)?
  2. Whether deposits made by the tenant under S. 30(1) of the Act (specifically two deposits of Rs. 216 each in Misc. Case No. 24 of 1973 — Papers Nos. 30-G and 31-Ga) can be taken into account for the purpose of meeting the S. 20(4) requirement.
  3. Whether failure to have a notice served on the landlord under Rule 21 (R.21) and the provisions of S. 30(4) invalidates a deposit made under S. 30(1).
  4. Whether, as a matter of fact, there was a refusal by the landlord to accept the rent so as to permit a S. 30(1) deposit (this issue was raised by the respondent but not decided below).
  5. Whether the deposit made by the tenant was unconditional (a conditional deposit would not qualify for S. 20(4)).

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's (Tenant's) Arguments (as advanced by Mr. S.P. Gupta)

  • The deposit of Rs. 2,714 on 12-1-1979 was made in time (the first date of hearing) under S. 20(4) and should give the tenant the benefit of that section.
  • The additional deposits (two sums of Rs. 216 each — Papers 30-G and 31-Ga in Misc. Case No. 24 of 1973), made under S. 30(1), must be aggregated with the Rs. 2,714 so that there is no shortfall; if so aggregated, the deposit meets the amount the District Judge said was required (the District Judge had held the required deposit was Rs. 2,813.70).
  • The deposits under S. 30(1) were made in full compliance with S. 30(1) and the Rules made thereunder and therefore were valid deposits.

Respondent's (Landlord's) Arguments (as advanced by Shri Dhan Prakash)

  • There was no compliance with S. 30 or Rule 21 (R.21) because no notice was ever issued to the landlord regarding the deposits; hence the deposits cannot be counted in favour of the tenant.
  • There was no refusal on the part of the landlord to accept rent (so S. 30(1) would not be attracted as there was no refusal to accept rent).
  • The deposit was not unconditional; because it was conditional, the deposit should not be treated as meeting S. 20(4) requirements.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court commenced by identifying the principal statutory structure and purpose: S. 20(4) affords a tenant who has defaulted an opportunity to save the tenancy by making a full deposit of rent due (with interest at 9% p.a. and costs) either by payment/tender to the landlord or by deposit in court at the first hearing, provided the payment/deposit is unconditional. The Act also provides that deposits made under S. 30(1) are to be taken into account for the purposes of S. 20(4).

The court then examined the scheme of S. 30 and the procedural rules in R.21 to determine when a deposit under S. 30(1) becomes valid for consideration under S. 20(4). Key elements of the analysis were:

  1. Interpretation of S. 30: The court summarized sub-sections (1) through (6) — highlighting that S. 30(1) applies where the landlord refuses to accept rent (tenant may deposit in court), S. 30(2) applies where a bona fide dispute exists as to entitlement to receive rent, and S. 30(6) contains a deeming clause treating a valid deposit as payment on the date of deposit. The court emphasized that only a deposit under S. 30(1) is entitled to be considered under S. 20(4); a deposit under S. 30(2) is not, because in disputes the entitlement must first be established.
  2. Analysis of R.21 (procedure for deposit): The court parsed sub-rules (1)–(4): sub-rule (1) requires application in Form E with requisite copies/process fees/notices (Form F); sub-rule (2) lists the heads under which a deposit may be made; sub-rule (3) requires the court to cause notice of the deposit to be served on the opposite party with a copy of the application; sub-rule (4) prescribes the procedure if the notice is returned unserved (court fixes a date for fresh process fee/notice; failure to comply leads to rejection and refund).
  3. Who has performed the required acts: The court held that the depositor's (tenant's) obligations are limited to compliance with sub-rules (1) and (2) of R.21 (i.e., filing the application in prescribed form, with copies, process fee and notices, and making the deposit under a prescribed head). The issuance of the notice is a duty cast on the Court under sub-rule (3). The tenant's duty is complete once the prescribed steps are performed, unless the notice is returned unserved and the court calls on the depositor to take fresh steps under sub-rule (4).
  4. Effect of failure of the Court to serve notice: The court reasoned that if the depositor properly complies with sub-rules (1) & (2) but, for reasons beyond the depositor's control, the Court fails to issue or cause service of notice, the depositor should not be penalised by denial of the benefit of the deposit. The depositor is only required to act further if the notice is returned unserved and the Court directs him to take fresh steps.
  5. Application to facts: In the present case neither party asserted that the petitioner had failed to comply with sub-rules (1) & (2), nor that notice had been returned unserved and the depositor had failed to act. Therefore, the court concluded the District Judge's finding — that the deposits could not be taken into account because notice was not issued — was legally erroneous.
  6. Questions of fact left for the District Judge: The court noted two factual issues not decided below (or not adverted to in the District Judge's order): (a) whether there was an actual refusal by the landlord to accept rent (a question of fact the petition court would not re-open under Art. 226), and (b) whether the deposit was unconditional (if conditional, it would not qualify under S. 20(4)). The court directed that the District Judge consider the conditionality point on remand because it was not addressed in the revisional order.

In sum, the court's statutory construction led to the legal conclusion that compliance by the tenant with the procedural preconditions in sub-rules (1) and (2) of R.21 suffices to make a deposit under S. 30(1) valid for consideration under S. 20(4), and that the issuance/ service of notice by the Court (sub-rule (3)) is not a prerequisite for the depositor to claim the benefit unless the notice returns unserved and the depositor is specifically called upon to cure defects.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The petition is allowed; the revisional order of the District Judge dated 12-11-1979 is quashed and the case is remanded to the District Judge for fresh decision in accordance with law.

Immediate consequences for the parties:

  • The District Judge's decree dismissing the tenant's claim to have satisfied S. 20(4) by aggregating deposits is set aside.
  • The matter is remanded to the District Judge to decide the revision afresh, keeping in view the observations in this judgment — in particular: (a) that deposits made under S. 30(1) must be treated as valid for S. 20(4) if the tenant complied with R.21 sub-rules (1) & (2), and (b) the District Judge should consider on remand the question whether any deposit was conditional (because a conditional deposit would disqualify the tenant from S. 20(4) relief).
  • No order as to costs was made by the court.

Broader legal implication stated by the court (interpretative guidance):

The court interpreted S. 30 and R.21 to mean that a tenant who duly performs the procedural steps required by R.21 sub-rules (1) and (2) and makes a deposit under S. 30(1) is entitled to have that deposit counted for the purposes of S. 20(4), irrespective of whether the Court has successfully served the notice required by sub-rule (3) — unless the notice was returned unserved and the depositor failed to take further steps within the period allowed. The duty to serve notice rests on the Court, and failure by the Court to serve notice should not penalise a depositor who otherwise complied with the rules.

Disposition: Petition allowed; impugned order quashed; matter remanded; no costs.

Show full summary ...

    Chokha Mal And Another v. Ram Autar And Others

    1. This is a tenant's writ petition. The landlord respondent 3, Ram Autar filed a suit in the court of Judge Small Causes, Bulandshahr, for the eviction of the petitioner Chokha Mal alias Chaula Ram from the shop in dispute on the ground of default in payment of rent. The petitioner taking advantage of the provisions of S. 20(4), U.P Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, made a deposit of Rs. 2,714/- on the 12th Jan., 1979, which was held to be the first date of hearing of the suit. The landlord claimed that the amount so deposited did not cover all the amounts due including the interest thereon. The petitioner pleaded that there was no shortfall in the amount, for he had made certain other deposits under S. 30(1) of the Act.

    2. The trial court partly decreed to suit of the landlord in respect of realisation of rent from 1-6-1975 but refused the relief of ejectment of the petitioner from the shop in question. The landlord Ram Autar filed a revision before the District Judge under S. 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, and claimed that the amount deposited by the petitioner was not the full amount and there was a shortfall and consequently the benefit of S. 20(4) of the Act was not available to the petitioner and secondly the deposit made by the petitioner under S. 30(1) of the Act was not a valid deposit, as no notice was issued to the landlord. On both these points the District Judge agreed with the landlord and allowed the revision decreeing the suit of the landlord. It is against this decision that the present writ petition has been filed. Mr. S.P Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, urged that the view taken by the District Judge on both these grounds was manifestly erroneous in law and the revisional order was liable to be set aside. Learned counsel referred to two deposits of Rs. 216/- each made in Misc. Case No. 24 of 1973 vide Papers Nos. 30-G and 31-Ga. His contention was that if these two amounts, which had been deposited under S. 30(1) of the Act, were to be added to the amount deposited by the petitioner in Court, there would be no shortfall. Admittedly, a sum of Rs. 2,714/- had been deposited where the suit was pending on the first date of hearing of the suit. The District Judge has given a finding that the amount that was required to be deposited was Rs. 2813,70. Learned counsel further contended that the aforesaid deposit was made in full compliance with the provisions of S. 30(1) of the Act and the Rules made thereunder and, as such, were valid deposits.

    3. Learned counsel for the respondents Shri Dhan Prakash, however, contended that there was no compliance with S. 30 or Rule 21, inasmuch as no notice was ever issued to the landlord regarding these deposits and consequently the benefit of the deposit could not be given to, the petitioner. Secondly, there was no refusal on the part of the landlord so as to give a right to the tenant to make the deposit. His third contention was that the deposit was not unconditional and, as such, the order of the District Judge was not liable to be set aside or quashed.

    4. The principal question in this case is when is a tenant entitled to the benefit of the provisions of S. 20(4) of the Act? This Section provides an opportunity to the tenant who has defaulted in the payment of rent to save his tenancy by making a full deposit of the entire rent due together with interest at 9 per cent per annum and the cost of the suit, provided the aforesaid amount is paid or tendered to the landlord by the tenant or deposited in Court at the first hearing of the suit unconditionally. In the earlier Act there was no such provision. If it was found that the tenant had defaulted in payment of arrears of rent within the meaning of S. 3(1)(a) of the Act, a decree for eviction followed.

    5. The present Act makes a departure from that and gives an opportunity to the tenant to save his tenancy provided he complies with the requirements of S. 20(4) of the Act. Another feature of the Sub-section is that any deposit made under the provisions of S. 30(1) of the Act by the tenant is also to be taken into consideration towards payment under S. 20(4) of the Act.

    6. It is not disputed that there would be a shortfall in the deposit if the two deposits vide 30-Ga and 31-Ga are not taken into consideration, but if these two deposits made by the tenant are taken into consideration then there would be no shortfall and a decree for eviction would be contrary to law. The question, therefore, to be examined is whether these deposits were in accordance with law.

    7. The District Judge has taken the view that the deposits made by the petitioner could not be taken into consideration, for the landlord had not been intimated about the deposits and as such it could not be deemed to be a valid deposit. The provision for making deposit by the tenant is contained in S. 30 of the Act. Sub-section (1) of S. 30 of the Act provides that where there is a refusal by the landlord to accept rent, the tenant may deposit the rent in the Court in the manner prescribed Sub-section (2) provides for making deposit in Court by the tenant where any bona fide doubt or dispute has arisen as to the person who is entitled to receive the rent Sub-section (3) provides that such a deposit shall be made in the court of Munsif having jurisdiction. Sub-section (4) provides that when a deposit is made under Sub-section (1) the Court shall cause a notice of the deposit to be served on the landlord and the amount so deposited can be withdrawn by him on application made to the Court. Sub-section (5) provides that in case of a deposit made in pursuance of Sub-section (2), the Court shall issue notice of the deposit on the person or persons concerned and hold the same in deposit for the benefit of the person who may be found entitled to it by any competent court or by settlement between the parties. Sub-section (6) provides that when a deposit is made by the tenant, it will be deemed that it has been paid on the date of such deposit to the person in whose favour it is deposited under sub-section (1) or to the landlord in case under sub-section (2).

    8. The procedure for making the deposit of rent is prescribed in R. 21. Sub-rule (1) requires that the depositor shall apply in form E and the application shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as the number of parties along with process fee and notices in Form F. Sub-rule (2) mentions the heads under which the deposit shall be made. Sub-rule (3) provides that on such deposit being made the Court shall cause the notice to be served on the opposite party along with a copy of the application. Sub-rule (4) provides that where the notice of the deposit is returned un-served, the Court shall fix a date on or before which the applicant shall deposit the fresh process fee and notice in Form F. If however within the time so allowed or the extended period of time the depositor fails to take steps his application is to be rejected and the amount refunded to him. Sub-rule (5) is not relevant.

    9. It is evident from the above that only a deposit under S. 30(1) is entitled to consideration under S. 20(4) of the Act. A deposit made under S. 30(2) of the Act is not to be taken into consideration. The reason behind this is clear. Where there is no dispute as to who the landlord is and he has refused to accept the rent, the tenant has been given an option to make the deposit in Court (as provided in S. 30(3) of the Act). Where there is a dispute as to who is entitled to receive the rent the tenant may make a deposit under S. 30(2) of the Act but then he has not been given the benefit of such a deposit under S. 20(4) of the Act for in such a case the person filing the suit for eviction has first to establish his rights to be entitled to receive the rent. It is also evident from the above that the making of the deposit is complete when sub-rules (1) & (2) of R. 21 are complied with. If the application is made in the proper Court in the prescribed form along with the requisite number of copies, process fee and notices in the prescribed form and the deposit is made under the prescribed head as stated in Sub-rule (2), the tenant has performed his part of duty. Sub-rule (3) contemplates that if there is compliance with Sub-rule (1) and Sub-rule (2) then notice shall be issued to the landlord. As a matter of fact Sub-rule (3) contemplates the duty cast on the Court. The words used are “the Court shall cause notice of the deposit to be served on the opposite party along with a copy of the application”. In case the notice is returned unserved, the duty is cast on the Court to intimate to the depositor to take fresh steps within a certain period of time or even extend the period of time so initially fixed. In case the tenant fails to do the needful then in that event notice would not be issued and the amount would be liable to be refunded to the depositor.

    10. It is now to be seen whether the depositor would get benefit of the deposit at the stage when he complies with Sub-rules (1) and (2) or on the service of notice as contemplated under Sub-rule (3). It has been seen above that a notice would issue when there is a full compliance with the provisions of sub-rules (1) and (2). The duty cast on the depositor viz. the tenant would be over the moment he complied with the requirements of sub-rules (1) and (2). He is not required to do anything further except in a case where the notice returns unserved and he is required to take fresh steps. In this case, the provisions of Sub-rule (4) are not attracted at all for it is nobody's case that the notice was returned unserved and that even after the opportunity was given to the tenant he had not furnished the process fees notice etc.

    11. Under sub-s. (6) of S. 30 of the Act the deeming clause has the effect of treating a deposit (made as aforesaid) into a payment to a person in whose favour it is deposited. The term’ ‘made as aforesaid’ in sub-s. (6) would only refer to the prescribed manner referred to in sub-s (1) of S. 30. Sub-rules (1) and (2) prescribe the manner of deposit.

    12. In my opinion, the tenant is not required to do anything further than what is contemplated under sub-rules (1) and (2). The requirement of sending notice only commences after there is a full compliance with the requirements of sub-rules (1) and (2) and the duty to send notice and get it served on the landlord is on the Court Whether the notice is served or not is no part of the duty of the depositor. The depositor cannot be penalised if the notice is not issued by the Court or after its return unserved is not brought to the notice of the depositor for taking fesh steps. The Court will be perfectly justified in not issuing notice in case there is a non-compliance with any of the requirements of Sub-rules (1), (2) and (4) but then in that event it would be the duty of the Court to bring the defects to the notice of the depositor. Assuming that all that has to be done by the depositor/tenant has been done, but for some reason or the other the Court fails to send notice as contemplated under Sub-rule (3), then the depositor cannot be penalised. It is, therefore, clear that a tenant depositor is entitled to take the benefit of the deposit when he complies with the requirements of sub-rules (1) and (2) fully, whether or not the notice is issued by the Court and served on the opposite party under Sub-rule (3).

    13. In the present case, it is not the case of any of the parties that the petitioner failed to comply with the requirements of sub-rules (1) and (2) of R. 21, or that the notice came back unserved and on being required to take fresh steps the depositor failed to take the requisite steps within the time allowed by the Court. In view of the above, the view taken by the learned District Judge that the deposit made by the petitioner was not a valid deposit as notice was not issued to the landlord is manifestly erroneous in law and cannot be sustained.

    14. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that there was no refusal by the landlord and consequently no deposit could be made under S. 30(1) of the Act does not appear to have been raised in the court below, for it has not been mentioned in the judgment of the District Judge. The question whether there was a refusal or not in accepting rent tendered by the tenant is a question of fact. In any event this Court would not enter into investigation of a question of fact while exercising powers of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. In any event, I am not inclined to permit the respondent landlord to take up this plea now in this Court for it is too late in the day.

    15. Another contention of the learned counsel for the respondent was that the deposit made by the petitioner was not unconditional. It does not appear that this matter was taken up before the learned District Judge. The question whether it was a conditional deposit or not is also a question of fact and is relevant for the purposes of S. 20(4) of the Act Since this point was not adverted to in the order of the District Judge I think it would be proper that this matter is considered by the District Judge, for if the deposit was conditional, the tenant would not be entitled to avail of the benefit of S. 20(4) of the Act. It had to be an unconditional deposit.

    16. For the reasons indicated above, I am of the view that the order of the court below must be set side as it is manifestly erroneous and the case sent back to the District Judge for a fresh decision in accordance with law. In the result therefore, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of the District Judge dated 12-11-1979 is quashed and the case is remanded to the District Judge for a fresh decision in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made in this judgment and decide the revision at an early date. No order is made as to costs.

    17. Petition allowed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Chokha Mal And Another v. Ram Autar And Others
    (Sep 17, 1982)