Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2690 (ALL)

Union of India v. Shanker Prasad Agarwal

2013-10-29

VISHNU CHANDRA GUPTA

body2013
JUDGMENT Vishnu Chandra Gupta,J.: - Heard Sri B.K.S. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri R.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the opposite party-landlord. 2. A short question arises in this matter; whether deposit of rent by the tenant Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (In short "the BSNL") to the Nagar Palika Parishad, Amroha will be decreed to the payment made to the landlord? 3. The brief facts for deciding this revision are that the opposite party no.1-Shanker Prasad Agarwal was the landlord of premises in question which admittedly let out to the BSNL after executing a lease deed having a forfeiture clause. On account of default in making the payment of rent. The landlord issued a notice demanding the rent and forfeiting the tenancy under Section 111 of the Transfer of Properties Act. The BSNL on the pretext that Nagar Palika Parishad Amroha also issued a recovery notice on the ground that property belongs to Nagar Palika Parishad deposit the amount of rent to Nagar Palika Parishad. It is also relevant to mention here that neither consent has been given by the landlord nor any permission has been given to the tenant to deposit the rent in Nagar Palika Parishad, Amroha. 4. It has been submitted on behalf of the revisionists that the amount of rent has already been deposited by the tenant to the Nagar Palika Parishad as the dispute of ownership of tenanted premises has arisen between landlord and the Nagar Palika Parishad. The amount, which has been deposited by BSNL, was a bona fide act of tenant, hence he cannot be deprived from continuing tenancy in terms of the lease deed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party-landlord submits that the litigation, which was in between the opposite party-landlord and the Nagar Palika Parishad has been set at rest by the competent court in Original Suit No.209 of 2002, Shanker Prasad Agarwal Vs. Nagar Palika Parishad, Amroha and others. The suit was decreed on 17.08.2007 by an ex-party decree. It has not been brought on record that this decree was ever set aside. In the suit for injunction, the title of petitioner over the property in dispute, which was under the tenancy of the BSNL, is settled in favour of opposite party. Therefore the bona fides as alleged by the tenant cannot be said to be a bona fide act. 6. In the suit for injunction, the title of petitioner over the property in dispute, which was under the tenancy of the BSNL, is settled in favour of opposite party. Therefore the bona fides as alleged by the tenant cannot be said to be a bona fide act. 6. Moreover, if there was a dispute of ownership of the tenanted premises and two persons are claiming the ownership of the same, the tenant have a right to file a inter pleader suit as provided in Order 35 of the CPC and deposit the amount in the Court. The tenant in this case opted to deposit the amount to a person, who is claiming to be owner of the premises, at his own risk. In view of Section 116 of Evidence Act, the tenant cannot dispute the relationship of landlord and tenant during the continuance of tenancy. Admittedly, the benefit available against the forfeiture of tenancy under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act has not been taken by tenant. Hence, the decree passed for recovery of arrears of rent as well as for eviction could not be said to be illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the BSNL that landlord of this case has agreed again to let out the building which is not denied by landlord's counsel but states that only part of the forfeited portion has been let out again to BSNL under an agreement of lease dated 30.05.2009. 8. So in view of the above admitted situation, it is provided that the decree passed by the trial court will not be operative to the extent of fresh agreement entered into between the parties, so far decree of eviction is concerned. 9. In view of above, the revision petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.