Summary
A Saharanpur shop tenant began depositing the admitted rent of Rs. 250 per month in court under Section 30 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 after the landlord refused it in 1993. The landlord then served a notice of demand dated 5 April 1995 claiming an enhanced rate and, on non-payment, obtained a decree of eviction. The Allahabad High Court rejected the enhanced rent for want of proof but upheld eviction because the tenant kept depositing in court after the notice. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal: the right to deposit in court under Section 30(1) lasts only until the landlord signifies in writing his willingness to accept rent; a notice of demand is such a signification, after which the tenant must tender at least the admitted rent to the landlord.
Issues
- Whether a tenant who has been depositing rent in court under Section 30(1) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 may continue to do so after the landlord serves a notice of demand, even one claiming rent at a higher rate than admitted.
Provisions considered
- Section 30(1), Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972A tenant whose rent is refused may deposit it in court and continue to do so only until the landlord signifies by notice in writing his willingness to accept it; the notice of demand dated 5 April 1995 was such a signification, so later deposits in court did not discharge the tenant. (¶¶ 6, 9, 10, 11)
- Section 20(2)(a), Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972Eviction lies where the tenant is in arrears for not less than four months and fails to pay within one month of service of a notice of demand; the tenant did not tender the admitted rent to the landlord after the notice. (¶¶ 6, 7)
- Section 20(4), Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972Relief against eviction on unconditional payment of the entire rent with interest and costs at the first hearing was not availed of; Ajai Agarwal, which granted that relief to a tenant who deposited the admitted rent before the first hearing, is therefore distinguishable. (¶¶ 6, 13, 14)
Held
- Section 30 gives a tenant whose rent has been refused an opportunity to deposit the admitted rent in court, but that arrangement lasts only until the landlord expresses his willingness to receive the rent directly; once the landlord serves a notice of demand, even at a higher rate, the tenant is obliged to tender at least the admitted rate to the landlord and has no right to continue depositing in court, as held by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Gokaran Singh. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12)
- Ajai Agarwal v. Har Govind Prasad Singhal concerned the benefit of Section 20(4) to a tenant who deposited the admitted rent before the first hearing, and does not apply where the tenant simply continued depositing in court after the landlord's notice. (¶¶ 13, 14)
Result
Tenant's appeal dismissed; Allahabad High Court judgment dated 17.02.2012 upholding the eviction decree affirmed; all interim orders vacated.