Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 410 (ALL)

Bachche Lal Chaurasiya v. Anil Kumar Baranwal

2018-02-15

SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI

body2018
JUDGMENT : Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. 1. Heard Shri Neeraj Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Rashmi Tripathi, learned counsel for the defendant-tenant/revisionist and Shri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the plaintiff-landlord/opposite party. 2. On 6.2.2018 this revision was heard on length and after noticing brief facts of the case, the following order was passed: "Heard Sri Neeraj Tiwari holding brief of Ms. Rashmi Tripathi, learned counsel for defendant-tenant/revisionist and Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the plaintiff-landlord/opposite party. This Revision under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Court Act, 1887 has been filed praying to set aside the judgment and decree 08.11.2017 in SCC No. 58 of 2012, Anil Kumar Baranwal v. Bachche Lal Chaurasiya passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Varanasi. By the impugned judgment, the suit was decreed and the defendant-tenant/revisionist was directed to vacate the disputed shop within three months and to handover its vacant and peaceful possession to the plaintiff-landlord/opposite party. The suit has been decreed by the impugned judgment on the finding that the defendant- tenant/revisionist appeared in the suit on 23.02.2013 and filed his written statement on 10.05.2013 but he continued to deposit the rent under Section 30 of the U.P. Act 13 of 1972 in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Varanasi till 02.01.2014. Therefore, the defendant-tenant/revisionist cannot have the protection of Order 15, Rule 5 C.P.C. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-landlord/opposite party has placed a copy of the judgment dated 30.08.2017 in matters under Article 227 No. 4290 of 2017, Smt. Kalawati v. Deen Dayal Sharma in which following the Full Bench judgment of this court reported in 2000 (1) ARC 653 , it has been held that deposit of rent made by the tenant after receipt of notice of demand, is permissible and any such deposit of rent will be of any benefit to the tenant. The tenant will have to be treated as defaulter in payment of rent for the period subsequent to the receipt of notice given by the landlord intimating his intention to receive the rent directly. Learned counsel for the defendant-tenant/revisionist submits that when the defendant-tenant/revisionist had put in appearance in the aforesaid suit, he filed an application for adjustment of rent deposited under Section 30 of the Act and the said Application was allowed, and permission was granted by the court of Additional District Judge to deposit the rent. Learned counsel for the defendant-tenant/revisionist submits that when the defendant-tenant/revisionist had put in appearance in the aforesaid suit, he filed an application for adjustment of rent deposited under Section 30 of the Act and the said Application was allowed, and permission was granted by the court of Additional District Judge to deposit the rent. Thereafter, the defendant-petitioner has deposited the rent before the court below. Therefore, he cannot be said to be defaulter in payment of rent. He, therefore, submits that the adverse finding recorded in the impugned judgment is perverse. He prays for and is granted two days' time to file a supplementary affidavit annexing therewith certified copies of all relevant papers in support of his aforementioned submission. As prayed, put up on 09.02.2018." 3. Today supplementary affidavit of Shri Anurag Sahu has been filed on behalf of defendant-revisionist. Along with this affidavit certified copy of the application dated 28.4.2014 has been filed as Annexure S.A.-1 which does pertain to the stand taken by the learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist as noted in the last paragraph of the afore-quoted order dated 6.2.2018. Undisputedly defendant-revisionist has failed to deposit the rent so as to claim protection of Order 15, Rule 5, C.P.C. The law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Gokaran Singh v. 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hardoi and Others, 2000 (1) ARC 653 is fully applicable on the facts of the present case. In the aforesaid case the Full Bench held that deposit of rent under section 30 of the Act, after receiving notice of demand, is permissible and any such deposit, if made, will be of any benefit of the defendant. The defendant will have to be treated defaulter in payment of rent for the period subsequent to the receipt of notice given by the landlord indicating his intention to receive the rent directly. 4. In the case of Smt. Kalawati v. Deen Dayal Sharma (Matters Under Article 227 No. 4290 of 2017) decided on 30.8.2017, this Court held that if the defendant wishes to take advantage of the beneficial provisions of the Rent Control Act, he must strictly comply with the requirements and if any condition precedent is to be filled before the benefit can be claimed, he must strictly comply with the condition, failing which he can take advantage of the benefit conferred under the said provision. It has further been held that the rent must be deposited in the Court where it is required to be deposited under the Rent Control Act and if it is deposited somewhere else, it shall be treated as a valid payment or tender of the rent and consequently, the tenant must be held to be in default. 5. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position and also the undisputed fact that defendant- revisionist has defaulted in payment of rent, the impugned judgment does suffer from any manifest error of law. Consequently the revision deserves to be dismissed. 6. In view of the above, the revision is dismissed. 7. After this order was dictated in open Court, learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist states on instructions that the defendant-tenant/revisionist undertakes to vacate the disputed shop and to hand over its vacant and peaceful possession to the plaintiff on or before 31.5.2018 and shall also deposit with the court below a sum of Rs. 8,000/- within the stipulated period for use and occupation of the disputed shop for the period from today till 31.5.2018 and thereupon no coercive action may be taken against defendant-revisionist to dispossess him from the disputed shop till 31.5.2018. 8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-landlord/respondent has no serious objection of the request made by the learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist. 9. In view of above, it is provided that in the event defendant-tenant/revisionist submits an undertaking on oath before the court below to the aforesaid effect within four weeks from today and also deposits a sum of Rs. 8,000/- within the same period, then in that event no coercive action shall be taken against the defendant-tenant/revisionist to dispossess him from the disputed shop till 31.5.2018. In case of non submission of the undertaking and not depositing the sum of Rs. 8,000/- within the stipulated period as aforesaid and non deposit of the decretal amount within the same period, the aforesaid protection given to the defendant-tenant/revisionist shall automatically stand vacated. It is further provided that on or before 31.5.2018 the defendant-tenant/revisionist shall vacate the disputed shop and shall hand over its vacant and peaceful possession to the plaintiff-landlord/respondent and in case of failure the plaintiff-landlord/respondent shall be entitled to initiate appropriate proceedings against the defendant-tenant/revisionist including the proceedings for contempt.