Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2300 (ALL)

Raja Ram v. Sarad Kumar

2014-08-02

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2014
JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal,J. Heard Sri Lalit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.M. Zaidi, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Petitioner is a tenant in the shop in dispute at a rent of Rs.560/590 per month. One Smt. Sudha Sharma, was the previous owner and landlord of the said shop. She transferred the aforesaid shop in favour of respondent vide registered sale deed dated 18.10.2004. Accordingly, petitioner became the tenant of the respondent in the shop in dispute. 3. Petitioner made an attempt to pay rent to the respondent but the same was not accepted. Therefore, he applied under Section 30(1) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the permission of the court to deposit rent in court. The application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 7.9.2007 which has been upheld by the revisional court vide judgment and order dated 7.8.08. 4. It is against the aforesaid rejection of the application under Section 30(1) of the Act that the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this court. 5. The submission of Sri Lalit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the court below has rejected the application of the petitioner for the reason that the respondent in the meantime had filed a suit for eviction of the petitioner or the ground of default in payment of rent and therefore, he cannot be permitted to deposit rent under Section 30 of the Act in view of the decision of this court in Abdul Wahid Vs. Addl. District Judge, Bijnor and others 2004(2) ARC 397. 6. Section 30 of the Act envisages two contingencies under which rent can be permitted to be deposited in court by the tenant. In the first place if the alleged landlord refuses to accept the rent and in the second where a bona fide doubt or dispute arises as to the person to whom the rent is payable. 7. In the present case petitioner has applied for permission to deposit rent in court under Section 30(1) of the Act on the ground that the landlord has refused to accept the rent. Therefore, as soon as the court is prima facie satisfied that the landlord has refused to accpet the rent it can grant permission to tenant to deposit rent in court. 8. Therefore, as soon as the court is prima facie satisfied that the landlord has refused to accpet the rent it can grant permission to tenant to deposit rent in court. 8. In Abdul Wahid (Supra) this court while considering the deposit made under Section 30 of the Act held that after a notice of demand of rent is served upon the tenant he is not authorised to deposit rent under Section 30 of the Act. 9. In case at hand admittedly petitioner applied for permission to deposit rent under Section 30 of the Act on 18.1.2005. The notice of demand and terminating tenancy was allegedly given on 6.1.06 and it is on the basis of the said notice that the suit for arrears of rent and eviction was instituted. 10. The notice of demand of rent and determining the tenancy was not in existence prior 6.1.06. Therefore, on the date of the application filed under Section 30 of the Act there was neither any demand of rent by the landlord nor determination of the tenancy which may justify denial of permission to deposit rent under Section 30 of the Act. 11. The aforesaid authority does not lay down that in every case where notice of demand is issued and a suit is instituted for arrears of rent and eviction, the tenant cannot be permitted to deposit rent in court under Section 30 of the Act. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the court below has manifestly erred in applying the authority of Abdul Wahid (Supra) in rejecting the petitioner's application ignoring the fact that the said suit was filed subsequently on the basis of the notice dated 6.1.06 which was not in existence at the time of moving application under Section 30 of the Act. 13. It goes without saying that the validity of the deposits made under Section 30 of the Act can only be examined at the stage of final decision of the suit on merits and not earlier thereto. 14. In this view of the matter even if petitioner would have been granted permission to deposit rent under Section 30 of the Act no prejudice would have been caused to the respondent as the validity of the deposits were open to examination at the time of deciding the suit. 15. 14. In this view of the matter even if petitioner would have been granted permission to deposit rent under Section 30 of the Act no prejudice would have been caused to the respondent as the validity of the deposits were open to examination at the time of deciding the suit. 15. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the court below grossly erred in rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 30 of the Act. The impugned orders dated 7.9.07 and 7.8.08 are quashed and the application of the petitioner to deposit rent under Section 30 of the Act paper No.3Ga stand allowed. 16. The writ petition is allowed as above but with no cost.