Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 137 (ALL)

Ram Lal v. Gayatri Devi

2016-01-11

MAHENDRA DAYAL

body2016
JUDGMENT Mahendra Dayal, J. The instant revision arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.4, Pratapgarh passed in S.C.C. Suit No.2 of 2008, whereby the suit filed by the opposite parties No.1, 2 and 3 was decreed with costs and the revisionist was directed to vacate the premises in question within 30 days from the date of decree and also to pay rent @ Rs.5/- per month alongwith house tax with effect from 23-6-2003 till the decision of the suit. 2. I have heard Shri Sharad Nandan Ojah, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Shri Shashank Shekhar Singh, learned Counsel for the opposite parties No.1, 2 and 3. 3. The submission of the learned Counsel for the revisionist is that he alongwith opposite parties No. 4 and 5 are tenant in respect of a portion of House No. 69/3 situated at Mohalla Takkarganj, Pargana and Tehsil Sadar, District Pratapgarh. The rate of rent is only Rs.5 per month, but the opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 3 issued an illegal notice of demand claiming rent @ Rs.2,400 per month. The revisionist after receipt of the notice tendered the rent to the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 through money order, but the same was refused by them. Having no other alternative, the revisionist deposited the rent in the Court of Munsif/Civil Judge, Junior Division under Section 30(1) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The opposite parties No.1, 2 and 3 filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment on the ground that the revisionist and opposite parties No. 4 and 5 had failed to tender the demanded rent and vacate the premises, therefore, their tenancy stood terminated. 4. The revisionist and opposite parties No. 4 and 5 contested the suit and filed their written statement stating therein that the rate of rent was not Rs.2,400 per month, but it was only Rs.5 per month. It was also stated by them that after receipt of the notice they sent the arrears of rent amounting to Rs.280 by means of money order and also replied the notice requesting the opposite parties No.1, 2 and 3 to receive the rent, but they instead of receiving the rent, refused to accept the same. Thereafter the rent was deposited in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division in Misc. Case No.53 of 2008. Thereafter the rent was deposited in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division in Misc. Case No.53 of 2008. The information with regard to deposit of rent was also sent by the Court to the opposite parties No.1, 2 and 3 but even after that they filed the suit for arrears of rent and ejectment. 5. The learned Court below framed four points of determination and on the basis of the evidence on record, recorded a finding that the rate of rent was not Rs.2,400 per month as claimed by the landlord, but it was only Rs.5 per month. However, with regard to the question of default, it was concluded that the revisionist and opposite parties No. 4 and 5 had committed default in payment of rent and on this ground, the suit was decreed. 6. The submission of the learned Counsel for the revisionist is that under the provision of Section 30 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, when the rent is deposited in the Court, it is deemed to be a valid payment to the landlord. Since the revisionist had deposited the rent in the Court with intimation to the opposite parties, no rent was due when the suit was filed. The suit for ejectment on the ground of arrears of rent can be filed only if the tenant is in arrears of rent of more than four months. Since the revisionist had already deposited the rent under Section 30 of the Act, they are not in arrears of rent, therefore, the suit itself was barred under Section 20(2) of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972. It has also been submitted on behalf of the revisionist that the suit should have been filed in the Court of Judge, Small Causes instead of District Judge because the rate of rent was only Rs.5/- per month and as such the valuation of the suit was within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes. 7. The revisionist had relied upon a case reported in 2009 (27) LCD Page 670, in which it has been held that when the rent is sent by money order, but refused by the landlord, the effect would be that the tenant would not remain in arrears. 8. 7. The revisionist had relied upon a case reported in 2009 (27) LCD Page 670, in which it has been held that when the rent is sent by money order, but refused by the landlord, the effect would be that the tenant would not remain in arrears. 8. Reliance has also been placed upon another decision reported in 2009 (27) LCD Page 690, in which it has been held that if the rent of four months was not due on the date when the notice was received by the tenant, the tenant cannot be held to be defaulter when the notice was received by him. 9. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties No.1, 2 and 3 have on the other hand submitted that although the findings of the learned Court below is that the rent is only Rs.5 per month, but it is to be seen whether the revisionist has committed default or not. Learned Court below on the basis of material on record has held that the revisionist was in arrears when the notice was issued and the suit was filed and they did not deposit the same on the first date of hearing, therefore, they were liable for eviction. With regard to deposit of rent under Section 30 of the Act, the submission of the learned Counsel for the opposite parties is that since the rent tendered by the revisionist was short of payment, therefore, they were justified in refusing to accept the rent sent by money order. The revisionist has deposited only that much of amount in the Court, which was tendered through money order, therefore, no advantage can be given to the revisionist. It is a settled law that unless the entire arrears are paid on receipt of notice or deposited on the first date of hearing, the tenant cannot escape liability of ejectment. He further submits that the rent deposited by the tenant under Section 30 of the Act is always deposited at his own risk. In the present case also, there was no clear order for permission to deposit the rent. The revisionist was permitted to deposit the rent only at his own risk. He further submits that the rent deposited by the tenant under Section 30 of the Act is always deposited at his own risk. In the present case also, there was no clear order for permission to deposit the rent. The revisionist was permitted to deposit the rent only at his own risk. He has relied upon a case reported in 1985 (1) ARC Page 433, in which it has been held that if the tenant after receipt of the notice tendered rent through money order, but the amount was short, landlord was justified in refusing to accept the money order and in such circumstances, the suit could be decreed. 10. On perusal of the impugned judgment, I find that the suit was filed on 17-4-2008 but while calculating the arrears of rent, learned Court below has treated the date of filing of the suit as 4-7-2008. This is factually wrong. Apart from this, learned trial Court has failed to record any finding as to whether the rent deposited under Section 30 of the Act was a valid deposit or not. The proceedings of Section 30 of the Act, in which a. tenant is permitted to deposit the rent is in the nature of summary proceedings in which no finding is recorded with regard to the validity of deposit. The tenant is simply permitted to deposit the rent at his risk. The question of validity of deposit is seen by the Court, which deals with me matter of default and ejectment. In the instant case, the learned Court below has not recorded any finding as to whether the amount of rent deposited under Section 30 of the Act was a valid deposit or not. The learned trial Court has also passed a decree for recovery of house tax while under Section 7 of the U.P. Act No.13 of 1972, the liability to ray the house tax and water tax arises only in case of those tenants whose monthly rent is Rs.25/- per month or more than that. Admittedly, the rate of rant is only Rs.5/- per month, there fore, the decree in respect of house tax and water tax could not have been passed by the Court below. 11. In view of above, this Court is also of the opinion that the matter requires re-consideration by the Court relow. 12. Admittedly, the rate of rant is only Rs.5/- per month, there fore, the decree in respect of house tax and water tax could not have been passed by the Court below. 11. In view of above, this Court is also of the opinion that the matter requires re-consideration by the Court relow. 12. In the result, the revision is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree dated 7-9-2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.4, Pratapgarh in S.C.C. Suit No.2 of 2008 is set aside. The learned Court below j directed to restore the S.C.C. Suit to its original number and decide the same afresh in accordance with the observations made by this Court hereinabove and also in the light of relevant provisions of U.P.ActNo.13 of 1972. The parties are directed to appear before the Court concerned on 28th January, 2016. The office is directed to transmit a certified copy of this judgment to the Court concerned through District Judge Pratapgarh.