- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Satya Prakash Verma v. Ixth Additional District Judge, Aligarh
Factual and Procedural Background
This writ petition was filed by a tenant challenging eviction proceedings initiated by the original landlord, Shrimati Shanti Devi (now deceased and represented by legal heirs), through S.C.C Suit No. 96 of 1996. The landlord sought eviction on the ground of default in rent payment, with the admitted rent being Rs. 70 per month. The tenant claimed protection under section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, which allows relief from eviction if the tenant deposits the entire arrears of rent, interest at 9% per annum, and the costs of the suit by the first date of hearing.
The trial court (J.S.C.C, Aligarh) held the tenant's deposit incomplete and decreed eviction on 20.7.1992, also passing a decree for arrears including pendente lite and future rent. The tenant challenged this in S.C.C Revision No. 26 of 1992, which was dismissed by the IXth Additional District Judge, Aligarh on 8.7.1997. The tenant then filed this writ petition.
Procedurally, summons were issued fixing 24.10.1986 as the first hearing date. The tenant did not appear on that date, leading to an ex parte order and a hearing fixed for 6.11.1986. The tenant appeared on 5.11.1986 and applied to recall the ex parte order and deposited arrears. However, the application remained pending for about five years and was allowed only on 14.5.1991, when the ex parte order was set aside. The court noted that the date of first hearing could not be considered as 24.10.1986 since that order was later set aside.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the date of first hearing for the purposes of section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, is to be taken as 24.10.1986 or 14.5.1991 after setting aside the ex parte order?
- Whether the tenant had made a complete deposit of arrears, interest, and costs as required under section 20(4) of the Act to avoid eviction?
- Whether interest on arrears rent should be calculated on the entire rent amount or only on the rent delayed until its deposit, and what is the correct method of calculation?
- Whether the writ court has the power to enhance rent while granting relief against eviction under the Rent Control Act?
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Kashi Nath v. Sushila Rastogi, 2003 53 ALR 1 | Formula and method for calculating interest month-wise at 9% per annum on rent arrears. | The court applied this precedent to hold that interest was only payable on the rent arrears from 1.4.1985 to 30.11.1986 and must be calculated month-wise; the Revisional Court erred in its interest calculation. |
| Khursheeda v. A.D.J, 2004 54 ALR 177 | Writ court’s power to enhance rent reasonably while granting relief against eviction under the Rent Control Act. | The court relied on this precedent to increase the rent from Rs. 70/- to Rs. 850/- per month effective September 2007, recognizing that the original rent was nominal and unreasonable. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the procedural history and concluded that the date of first hearing could not be 24.10.1986 because the ex parte order passed on that date was set aside only on 14.5.1991. Even if 14.5.1991 were considered the first hearing date, the tenant had deposited the arrears, interest, and costs in excess of the amount required under section 20(4) of the Act by that date.
The Revisional Court’s calculation of interest was found to be erroneous because interest should only be charged on the rent arrears from 1.4.1985 to 30.11.1986, which were deposited on 5.11.1986. The court applied the formula from Kashi Nath v. Sushila Rastogi to calculate interest correctly on a month-wise basis at 9% per annum.
The tenant’s deposit was thus complete and compliant with section 20(4), entitling him to relief from eviction. The court also invoked its power under the Rent Control Act, as explained in Khursheeda v. A.D.J, to enhance rent to a reasonable amount given the nominal original rent and the commercial nature of the property.
Holding and Implications
The writ petition is allowed. The judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and the Revisional Court regarding eviction are set aside.
The tenant is entitled to the benefit of section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, having made complete deposit of arrears, interest, and costs.
The rent is enhanced from Rs. 70/- to Rs. 850/- per month effective from September 2007, inclusive of water tax, with no further charges payable by the tenant.
No new precedent beyond the direct effect on the parties is established by this decision.
S.U Khan, J.:— Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This is tenant's writ petition. Original landlord-respondent No. 3 Shrimati Shanti Devi, since deceased and survived by legal representatives, instituted suit for eviction against the petitioner-tenant on the ground of default in the form of S.C.C Suit No. 96 of 1996. Admitted rate of rent is Rs. 70/- per month. Tenant claimed benefit of section 20(4) of U.P Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. According to the said provision if on the first date of hearing tenant deposits entire arrears of rent, interest @ 9 per rent per annum and the cost of the suit, then he may be relieved from the liability of eviction. J.S.C.C, Aligarh held that the deposit made by the tenant under the aforesaid provision was not complete. Accordingly suit for eviction was decreed on 20.7.1992 Decree for arrears of rent along with pendente lite and future rent was also passed. Against the said judgment and decree tenant-petitioner filed S.C.C Revision No. 26 of 1992. IXth Additional District Judge, Aligarh dismissed the revision on 8.7.1997 Hence this writ petition.
3. Summons of the suit was issued to the defendant fixing 24.10.1986 On the said date petitioner did not appear, hence an order was passed directing the suit to proceed ex parte and 6.11.1986 was fixed for ex parte hearing. On 5.11.1986 tenant-petitioner appeared and filed application for recall of the order dated 24.10.1986 On the said date i.e 5.11.1986 itself tenant also deposited the arrears of rent etc. due till that date. Unfortunately, the said application remained pending for about 5 years and was ultimately allowed on 14.5.1991 and on 14.5.1991 order dated 24.10.1986 was set aside. Prescribed authority took 24.10.1986 to be the date of first hearing. By no stretch of imagination the said date can be said to be date of first hearing, particularly, when order dated 24.10.1986, directing the suit to proceed ex parte, had been set aside on 14.5.1991 Revisional Court held that even if 14.5.1991 was taken to be the date of first hearing, deposit made by the tenant till that date was short and not in complete compliance of section 20(4) of the Act. In para 16 of the writ petition complete details of the deposit up to 14.5.1991 and the exact amount required to be deposited under section 20(4) of the Act by the said date have been given. According to the said para rent from 1.4.1985 to 14.5.1991 comes to Rs. 5163/-. (In the plaint rent was claimed from 1.4.1985) Rs. 281/- were required to be deposited towards Court-fees and Rs. 283.80 as advocate's fees. Total comes to Rs. 5727.80 An amount of Rs. 149.10 has been shown as interest @ 9 per cent per annum from 1.4.1985 to 30.11.1986 Adding the two figures the total comes to Rs. 5877.40 By the said date i.e 14.5.1991 petitioner had already deposited Rs. 6053.50 In this manner the amount deposited by the petitioner was in excess by Rs. 176.10 Revisional Court added an amount of Rs. 1431.53 as interest and in this manner according to the Revisional Court petitioner ought to have deposited Rs. 7159/-. Revisional Court was clearly wrong in calculating the interest. As the amount of rent was being continuously deposited in the suit, hence no interest was liable to be paid on the said amount. Interest was liable to be paid only for the rent from 1.4.1985 to 30.11.1986 which was deposited on 5.11.1986 Moreover, interest is to be calculated month wise @ 9 per cent per annum. The formula to calculate interest has been discussed in the authority in Kashi Nath v. Sushila Rastogi . 2003 53 ALR 1..
4. The details given in para 16 of the writ petition have not specifically been denied in the counter-affidavit. Accordingly it is held that the tenant had made complete deposit and was entitled to the benefit of section 20(4) of the Act.
5. Writ petition is, therefore, allowed. Judgments of both the Courts below, decree of Trial Court and the order of the Revisional Court in respect of eviction are set aside.
6. I have held in Khursheeda v. A.D.J . 2004 54 ALR 177 that while granting relief against eviction to the tenant in respect of a building covered by Rent Control Act, Writ Court is empowered to enhance the rent to a reasonable extent. The property in dispute is a shop situate in Bara Bazar Qasba Atrauli District Aligarh. Atrauli is an important tahsil of Aligarh. Rent of Rs. 70/- is virtually as well as actually no rent. Accordingly it is directed that with effect from September 2007 onward tenant-petitioner shall pay rent to the landlord-respondent @ Rs. 850/- per month inclusive of water tax etc. No further amount shall be payable by the petitioner over and above the aforesaid amount.
Petition Allowed.
Alert