Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1277 (ALL)

Ashok Kumar v. Din Dayal Badal

2004-07-15

TARUN AGARWALA

body2004
JUDGMENT Tarun Agarwala, J.—The original landlord died on 11.11.1987. The tenant remitted the rent by money-order, which was returned with the remark that the original landlord had died. Accordingly, the tenant filed an application under Section 30 of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, stating therein that the original landlord had died and that it was not known as to whom the rent should be sent. Notice on this application was sent to the heirs of the landlord, who refused to accept the summons and, accordingly, the Munsif permitted the tenant to deposit the rent under Section 30 of the Act. Thereafter, the heirs of the original landlord sent a notice dated 9.8.1988 to the tenant demanding arrears of rent and further terminated the tenancy. This notice was duly served upon the defendant on 16.8.1988. The defendant submitted a reply dated 30.8.1988 intimating the heirs that he had deposited the rent under Section 30 of the Act in the Court of Munsif and that the heirs may withdraw the rent from the Court. The tenant also intimated that he was not in arrears of rent. Inspite of this reply, the heirs filed a suit for arrears of rent and for eviction. The Judge Small Cause Court dismissed the suit holding that the tenant was not in arrears of rent and that he had made a valid deposit of rent under Section 30(2) of the Act. The court below while dismissing the suit, however, directed the landlord to withdraw the rent deposited by the defendant. 2. Aggrieved by the decision of the Judge Small Cause Court, the landlord has now filed the present revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. 3. The learned counsel for the landlord submitted that there was no valid deposit of rent under Section 30 (1) of the Act and therefore, no benefit could be given to the tenant with regard to the said deposit. The learned counsel submitted that the money order sent by the tenant was returned with the remark that the landlord had died and therefore, it could not be said that there had been a refusal which would justify the tenant to deposit the rent under Section 30 (1) of the Act. The learned counsel submitted that the money order sent by the tenant was returned with the remark that the landlord had died and therefore, it could not be said that there had been a refusal which would justify the tenant to deposit the rent under Section 30 (1) of the Act. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied upon Jagat Prasad v. District Judge, Kanpur and others, 1995 (2) ARC 360 ; Satish Chandra Nigam v. District Judge, Kanpur and others, 1984 (2) ARC 324 and Jawahar Lal Chaurasiya v. Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur and others, 1981 ARC 506. 4. The submission of the learned counsel, though attractive is however not applicable in the instant case. The deposit of rent in the present case is not under Section 30 (1) of the Act, but under Section 30 (2) of the Act. Section 30 (1) and (2) of the Act reads as under : “30. Deposit of rent in Court in certain circumstances.—(1) If any person claiming to be a tenant of a building tenders any amount as rent in respect of the building to its alleged landlord and the alleged landlord refuses to accept the same then the former may deposit such amount in the prescribed manner and continue to deposit any rent which he alleges to be due for any subsequent period in respect of such building until the landlord in the meantime signifies by notice in writing to the tenant his willingness to accept it. (2) Where any bona fide doubt or dispute has arisen as to the person who is entitled to receive any rent in respect of any building, the tenant may likewise deposit the rent stating the circumstances under which such deposit is made and may, until such doubt has been removed or such dispute has been settled by the decision of any competent court or by settlement between the parties, continue to deposit the rent that may subsequently become due in respect of such building.” 5. From a perusal of the aforesaid provisions it is clear that when the landlord refuses to accept the rent from the tenant, in that case the tenant is entitled and justified to deposit the rent in the Court under Section 30 (1) of the Act. From a perusal of the aforesaid provisions it is clear that when the landlord refuses to accept the rent from the tenant, in that case the tenant is entitled and justified to deposit the rent in the Court under Section 30 (1) of the Act. However, in a case where a bona fide doubt or dispute arises as to who would be entitled to receive the rent in respect of the building, in such cases the tenant may deposit the rent in Court under Section 30 (2) of the Act. 6. In the present case, the deposit which has been made by the tenant was made under Section 30 (2) of the Act and not under Section 30 (1) of the Act. The tenant had categorically stated in his application that the landlord had died and that he did not know as to whom the rent should now be paid. Thus, the deposit of rent under Section 30 (2) of the Act, was a valid deposit. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the deposit was made under Section 30 (1) is wholly incorrect. Consequently, the judgment cited by the learned counsel are distinguishable and are not applicable to the present case. Since a valid deposit had been made by the tenant, there were no arrears of rent on the date when the notice of demand was served. Consequently, the tenant was not in arrears of rent of more than four months under Section 20 (4) of the Act and could not be evicted from the premises in question. 7. In view of the aforesaid, I find no reason to interfere in the judgment passed by the court below. There is no merit in the present revision and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to cost.